Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour how many people, working in any industry, now come under the Holidays with Pay Act, 1938; how many have not been able to get arrangements with the employer; and what steps his Department are taking to bring within the Act all industries, so that every worker shall be entitled to holidays with pay?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Of the workpeople, numbering about 2,300,000 affected by the Holidays with Pay Act, 1938, all but about 20,000, nearly all of whom ape outworkers, have been made entitled to holidays with pay either by statutory orders or by voluntary agreements giving more favourable terms than could be given under the Act. In addition, about 5,000,000 workers receive holidays with pay under voluntary agreements. I have no proposal in contemplation at present for an extension of the Act.

Mr. Tinker: Would my right hon. Friend use his good offices to try and get those firms which are not doing so at present to give holidays with pay? That would be beneficial to the industries, as the men would be reinvigorated.

Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will give the names of the firms concerned, I will take the matter up with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

MINERS (RELEASE FROM ARMED FORCES).

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the shortage of labour in the mining industry, he will recommend that miners of low medi-

cal category, now serving in the Armed Forces, be released conditional upon their taking employment in the industry?

Mr. Bevin: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 19th June to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald).

Mr. Oliver: I do not know what that answer was. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be kind enough to give it?

REGISTRATION (MEDICAL FITNESS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour, whether, in the absence of any medical evidence or certificate, any officer of the Ministry or Assistance Board is competent to decide if a person registering for work is medically acceptable; and whether it is permissible for the officer to ask leading questions of applicants with a view to determining if they are medically acceptable?

Mr. Bevin: Unemployment allowances can only be paid to applicants who are "capable of work," and it is the duty of the Board's officer to satisfy himself on this point, and for this purpose to make any necessary inquiries. Where substantial doubt exists regarding an applicant's physical condition, the practice is to refer the case for medical opinion.

Mr. Sorensen: What is the process by which the officer decides whether an applicant is in good health; and on what ground is the applicant put off the register for the time being? Has the applicant any right of appeal in such a case?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly, the applicant can appeal under the Act.

WELFARE OFFICERS.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour how many regional welfare officers have now been appointed; and what are their main functions?

Mr. Bevin: There is one divisional welfare officer in each of the eleven regional divisions in England, Scotland and Wales. They are concerned with the welfare of industrial workers outside the factories, and, in particular, with such matters as proper housing, feeding, transport and recreation. It is in general the function of the welfare officer to bring any defects


in these matters to the notice of the appropriate authority, and to endeavour to secure that the necessary remedial action is taken as quickly as possible.

Mr. Lindsay: Is that the total number of welfare workers? Is there just one in each region, or are there others in the districts?

Mr. Bevin: The welfare officer is my representative in the region, but he has organised under him all the voluntary agencies, and he co-ordinates the whole of their work.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who have been trained as welfare officers under the Ministry of Labour scheme are still without posts?

Mr. Bevin: This Question deals with those outside the factories, and the hon. Member is referring to those inside the factories. I am not aware that people are left without posts very long. I follow each case as it is passed out.

STEEL PRODUCTION (FURNACES, BRICKSETTERS).

Mr. Summers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that steel production is handicapped for want of bricksetters for the repair and maintenance of furnaces; that piece rates for such work are frequently impracticable; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the present position?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, but if my hon. Friend will furnish further details I will have inquiries made.

BUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Summers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the policy of the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers is to oppose the dilution of labour; and whether, in the national interest, notwithstanding this attitude, he is prepared to augment the supply of labour in this industry to over come the shortage that exists?

Mr. Bevin: While I am aware of certain difficulties of this kind, I know of no reason for thinking that they constitute any major hindrance to production in this industry, and more effective methods of increasing production arc being adopted.

Mr. Summers: Is the Minister prepared to see that no ill-effects from the national standpoint result from people putting sectional interests above those of the nation?

Mr. Bevin: I will do that.

SUMMER TIME.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the beneficial effect in industrial centres of the long summer evenings and the proposal to spread holidays over a long period, in order not to affect production and so keep as many as possible continuously employed; and will he extend the present summer time until the end of August?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): While I appreciate the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend, account must also be taken of the effect of his proposal on early morning workers. If the period of double summer time were extended as proposed, black-out time in the last days of August would not end till about 6.40 a.m. In fixing the period full consideration was given to the effect on various classes of workers and the Government came to the conclusion that extension beyond 10th August would involve disadvantages outweighing the advantages.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS.

Sir Annesley Somerville: asked the Minister of Labour what requests he has received to issue instructions, of a kind that might influence their decisions, to the independent persons appointed by the Ministry of Labour to act in a judicial capacity as members of trade boards; and will he bring to the notice of these boards the necessity of taking into consideration the Government's declared policy to stabilise the cost of living?

Mr. Bevin: I have myself received no request of this kind, and, for the reason given to my hon. Friend in my reply of 3rd July, I should consider it quite improper to comply with such a request, or to take any equivalent action such as my hon. Friend suggests in the second part of his Question.

Sir A. Somerville: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is of the


highest importance that trade boards should fully realise the importance of taking into consideration such a policy?

Mr. Bevin: I am quite certain that the chairmen of the trade boards are such competent people that they take all relevant factors into consideration. I will not take any step to interfere with them in their judicial function.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that any increase in wages always follows an increase in the cost of living?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Captain Profumo: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider granting pensions to parents who have lost their sons in the war, without any inquiry as to means, provided the son was making an allotment from his pay to his parents during his service with His Majesty's Forces, particularly in all cases where; the full dependants' allowance was being paid prior to death?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to a similar Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for West Bromwich (Captain J. Dugdale) on 26th June, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Cannot the Minister see his way to do this? There is a great deal of feeling about it.

Sir W. Womersley: Perhaps the hon. Member will look up the answer I gave on 26th June.

Captain Profumo: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, might I point out that the original answer deals with a slightly different point from that of my Question?

Sir W. Womersley: I think it is a complete answer. I will read it out, if Mr. Speaker will allow me—
The Select Committee of 1921 took the view that to justify the grant of a parent's pension the test of need, broadly interpreted, should be satisfied. This principle was incorporated in the 1940 Warrant, the provisions of which were fully considered by my Statutory Advisory Committee. I regret that I am not prepared to waive this requirement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1941; col. 1127, Vol. 372.]

Mr. Beverley Baxter: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give further consideration to the rule under which members of the Armed Forces, who are injured or killed by enemy action when not on duty, are dealt with under the civilian scheme instead of receiving the full benefit of the pensions provided for members of the Armed Forces on duty?

Sir W. Womersley: I am very glad to inform the hon. Member that, following consideration of this question with my Central Advisory Committee, I have obtained authority to award pensions at the rates applicable to injury or death attributable to service, in cases in which full-time members of the Armed Forces while not on duty are injured or killed as the result of enemy bombing or the discharge of any weapon by the enemy or by our own Forces in repelling the enemy.

Mr. Baxter: Is the Minister aware that his action will cause great satisfaction in the country, and will add to his reputation? Will this change be retroactive in the case of casualties already dealt with?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir. All cases which have been dealt with previously, and for which civilian pensions have been awarded, will be transferred to the Forces pension.

Mr. Burke: Will the Minister review all those cases previously turned down, or must the people concerned make application?

Sir W. Womersley: I will go through them myself—they probably will not amount to a great number—but if anybody wishes to apply, he may do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the present consideration in this country of possible social and economic adjustment and expansion after the war, and a measure of preparation to this end before the end of the war, any comparable plans for India are being, or will be, considered both in respect of the automobile and shipping industries, and of other industries and socially necessary services?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The Government of India have


recently appointed a reconstruction committee to deal with post-war problems of readjustment of industry and labour. I have no doubt the committee will consider all the matters to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the scope of that Committee as wide as that given to one of our Cabinet Ministers regarding our own British reconstruction?

Mr. Amery: I have not yet received full details.

Mr. Sorensen: Will those details be made public?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member might ask me again.

POLITICAL PRISONERS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the altered international situation, he has considered the substantial diplomatic and psychological advantages that might accrue from the release or amnesty of political prisoners in India, and a reconsideration of the basic cause of the continuing political deadlock and of an acceptable policy to remove this; and whether he contemplates any further approach to Indian political leaders?

Mr. Amery: I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Member's inference with regard to the effect of the altered international situation upon the political deadlock in India. In any case I am not at present in a position to make any fresh statement on the subject, which, however, continues to engage the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the changes in the international situation are likely to affect such a vast problem as that of India; and, in the circumstances, can be give any indication when he is likely to make some further statement on the subject?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Could not this deadlock at once be ended if Congress would permit those seven Ministries to go back to function?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

INTERNED ALIENS (AGENTS).

Earl Winterton: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the practice of some agents who exact exorbitant fees from interned aliens and their friends in return for making representations on their behalf to the Home Office; and whether he can take any steps to put an end to this exploitation of human distress?

Mr. H. Morrison: As the Answer is rather long, I will, with Mr. Speaker's permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

Later:

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir: from time to time such cases come to my notice, and I am always anxious to take such action as is possible to put an end to conduct of this character, which I am sure the House will join with me in condemning. In any case where it appeared that an agent had obtained money by false pretences, e.g., by pretending that he is in a position to obtain preferential treatment for his client, the papers would be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to consideration of the question of instituting proceedings. In cases where there is no evidence on which a criminal charge could be instituted, communications received by the Home Office from such agents are ignored and replies are sent direct to the. alien concerned. People who make a profitable business of acting as agents for aliens usually avoid exposing themselves to a charge of false pretences, but nevertheless they frequently by suggestion or innuendo convey the impression that by their intervention they can secure for the alien some advantage which he would not otherwise gain. There is no foundation for such claims. A communication from an alien, however imperfectly expressed, commands the same consideration as an elaborate memorial from an agent who represents himself as an expert in the transaction of such business or even from a solicitor. Indeed, a communication at first hand from the applicant may often be more effective for his purpose. The idea—unfortunately common—that it is an advantage to have influential support is entirely mistaken. The best support for any application to the Home Office is


a simple and frank statement of the facts. If in any case an alien feels difficulty in framing an adequate statement of his case owing, for example, to imperfect knowledge of the language, the voluntary organisations which befriend refugees are always willing to give assistance free of charge. There is accordingly no reason why an alien should employ touting agents to write to the Home Office on behalf of himself or his friends. I am taking steps to make this answer known both in the internment camps and at the offices of the refugee organisations.

Earl Winterton: If the right hon. Gentleman's attention is called to cases where firms of solicitors have asked an unduly high charge for professional services for making application to the Home Office— one such case has been brought to his notice— will he report the matter to the Law Society?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I will certainly do so in cases which prima facie require investigation.

Sir Irving Albery: In view of the statement that such cases have been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, what action has he already taken?

Mr. Morrison: I have taken the course in the case which has been indicated of putting it to the Law Society, but I have not yet had a report.

Mr. Buchanan: Is there any evidence that the great mass of solicitors have abused their privilege, and is there any objection to an alien going to a solicitor in the ordinary way to advise him on such a matter?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think there was any allegation that the mass of solicitors are behaving improperly. On the contrary, I should say the great mass of them are acting quite properly. These cases are exceptional. As far as the Home Office is concerned, there is no objection to an alien having the assistance of a solicitor. I only felt it right to say in my Answer that he would thereby, in my experience, get no better consideration from the Home Office than if he wrote himself.

Sir William Davison: As the Regulations are very complicated, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that an

alien will not be prejudiced by getting advice as to what his rights are?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I will do that, and that is, of course, the case. I only wanted it to be understood that the contrary is not true and that he will not get an advantage by obtaining assistance.

Mr. Lathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of refusing to recognise these agents?

Mr. Morrison: In cases where we know that they are agents we refuse to recognise them.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: In the case that has been referred to, when the report is received from the Law Society will it be made available to Members of the House?

Mr. Morrison: I must consider that.

INFLAMMABLE DUMP.

Colonel Harold Mitchell: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a dump of highly inflammable material is lying stored in the open in a densely populated urban area; that this was brought to his attention by the local authority concerned and by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick over a year ago, and repeatedly since; and, seeing that this material could readily be stored in the country as it is not used for adjacent manufacture, will he see that it is now moved to a place of safety?

Mr. H. Morrison: Directions were given in November last by the Regional Commissioners for London requiring certain precautions to be taken in connection with this dump, but great difficulty was experienced in complying with them. These difficulties have now been overcome and rapid progress is being made in disposing of the dump.

Colonel Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that, in fact, the directions given by the Regional Commissioner have not been complied with, that the dump is not being disposed of rapidly, and that if the present rate of disposal is continued, even assuming that no more material is put in, it will be at least five months before this danger is removed?

Mr. Morrison: I am assured that that is not so, and that satisfactory progress is


now being made. I believe that progress is very rapid, and I am informed that the position is satisfactory now.

Colonel Mitchell: I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising this matter.

AUXILIARY FIRE SERVICE.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the disappointment expressed by some members of the Auxiliary Fire Service, who, owing to the provisions of the National Service Act, 1941, have lost the option of enlisting in the Armed Forces; and whether he will consider, in consultation with the departments concerned, applications from such members for discharge from the Auxiliary Fire Service to enable their enlistment?

Mr. H. Morrison: The only persons who have so far been compulsorily enrolled in the Auxiliary Fire Service, irrespective of any preference they may have expressed for any other form of national service, are part-time auxiliary firemen whose calling up for military service had been deferred because of their part-time service. These compulsory enrolments have been made in accordance with established national service arrangements which provide that men with special experience or aptitude are earmarked for particular duties, and I regret that the needs of the fire-fighting services at the present time make it impossible to release them.

Sir J. Mellor: While I recognise that everyone must give the services required, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these people are in this position because they originally volunteered, and, that being so, will he take that fact into account should any further opportunity of discharge arise?

Mr. Morrison: If the supply of auxiliary firemen should improve, or if circumstances should happily make it possible gradually to reduce the fire brigades, which I very much doubt, I will take that fact into account, but as things are the balance is rather the other way.

Mr. Burke: Will the Home Secretary see that, if these people have to go into the Services, their conditions are made at least equal to the conditions they have previously enjoyed?

Mr. Morrison: Approximately speaking — and it can only be approximately— the material worth of service in the Army and that in Civil Defence are the same.

Mr. Burke: Is it not the fact that they are not the same?

Mr. Morrison: They cannot be the same, and I did not say they were the same. I said "approximately," but, taking it by and large, they are estimated to be about the same in material worth.

COMMUNIST LEAFLET.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, on Sunday, 6th July, supplies of a Communist party leaflet, "Solidarity with the Soviet Union," were seized by police at a meeting in a market place; and whether, as this leaflet appeals for the closest collaboration with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the struggle against Nazism, police forces throughout the country will be informed that no obstacles are to be placed in the way of its distribution?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have no information as to this incident, or as to the circumstances in which the police took action, but if the hon. Member will supply me with further particulars, including the place at which the incident is said to have occurred, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Home Secretary whether, in view of the handicap from which the Communist party suffers as a result of the banning of the "Daily Worker," it would not be desirable to encourage the police to assist them in the distribution of the leaflet?

Mr. Morrison: I am bound to say that that is not the only handicap from which the Communist party suffers.

CAMBRIDGE.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that difficulties have arisen in the Cambridge Civil Defence organisation as a result of which certain individuals have been called upon and others have threatened to resign; and whether he will set up an impartial inquiry to report upon the matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that there have been some complaints, and they are the subject of investigation by the Regional Commissioner.

REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS.

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Health, whether he has decided to carry out any further delegation of his Civil Defence functions to Regional Commissioners, as recommended in the Fourteenth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): Yes, Sir. I informed the Regional Commissioners on 23rd June that after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security we had come to the conclusion that executive responsibility for all services the Ministerial responsibility for which is at present divided between his Department and mine should be delegated to Commissioners in order to ensure single control in the region, and that I had accordingly decided, subject to any directions which it might be necessary for me to give on matters of policy, to delegate responsibility for the first-aid posts and A.R.P. ambulance services forthwith. The position therefore is that the Commissioners now have the same authority in relation to those services as they already have in relation to the first-aid party and rescue party services for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.

Mr. Lindsay: Are first-aid posts and ambulances in the new delegation?

Mr. Brown: The Question was precise, and the Answer I have given was precise.

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the administrative powers of his officers?

Mr. Brown: I have delegated considerable powers to my senior regional officers, subject to my directions on matters of policy.

WELFARE OFFICERS.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health, how many regional, and how many county welfare officers have now been appointed; and what are their respective functions?

Mr. E. Brown: Twenty welfare officers have been appointed on my regional staffs. The latest available information indicates that 48 welfare organisers have been appointed by county councils and 70 organisers and social workers by borough and district councils. Speaking generally, the regional welfare officers

are concerned with the development of welfare work throughout the region, such as the provision of social centres, hostels and communal billets; the supervision of unaccompanied children in billets; the provision of occupational and recreational facilities; and guidance in individual cases presenting special difficulties. The county organisers are concerned with similar activities but their function is the administration within their county areas. There is in addition a very large number of voluntary workers, in the Women's Voluntary Services and other organisations, engaged in this work.

Mr. Lindsay: Would my right hon. Friend see that the excellent people who have been appointed do not overlap with one another and with similar officers who have been appointed by the Ministry of Labour and, to some extent, by the Board of Education? Could he arrange meetings so that the maximum benefit could be obtained from the work to be done?

Mr. Brown: So far as my regional welfare officers are concerned, once a county's arrangements are in running order the officer is there mainly for guidance, and my personal inquiries on the spot show that that guidance is appreciated. If my hon. Friend knows of any cases of overlapping, I will look into them.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is overlapping?

EVACUATED CHILDREN.

Mr. Martin: asked the Minister of Health, in how many cases of children evacuated apart from their parents, both the authorities and the children concerned have lost touch with the parents; and whether he proposes taking any action in such cases?

Mr. E. Brown: Statistics are not available, but I am making inquiries of the evacuation authorities concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION.

Sir Robert Bird: asked the Home Secretary who are the members of the Welsh Church Commission; the date of their appointment and their emoluments; and the constitution of the office and other staff of the Commission, their number and salaries?

Mr. H. Morrison: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. A full statement of the present functions of the Commission was made in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) yesterday.

Mr. Lipson: Does that answer show that they are all earning their salaries?

Mr. Morrison: As far as I am aware, it would appear to be so.

Following is the answer:

The members of the Welsh Church Commission are Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, who was appointed in 1923 and is in receipt of a salary of £ 1,500 a year, and Lord Plender, appointed in 1914, who has never drawn a salary. The Welsh Church Commission employ seven salaried officials and seven temporary clerks and typists, as follow:—

£
£


Secretary and Chief Accountant
1,000



Glebe Superintendent

650



Assistant Accountant

600



*Secretary's Personal Assistant

435



Registrar

330



Accounts Staff Clerk—





£350 + bonus £13
=
363



Accounts Staff Clerk—





£286 + bonus £13
=
299






3,677


Grade and Temporary Clerks—



1—£234 + bonus £26
=
260



2—£182 + bonus £26
=
208



3—£182 + bonus £26
=
208



4—£120 + bonus £20
=
140



5—£208 + bonus £26
=
234



Shorthand-Typists—



1—£197 + bonus £20
=
217



2—£151 + bonus £ 20
=
171






1,438





£ 5,115


* This man has joined the Forces and is now a lieutenant, and the Commissioners only pay him the difference between Civil and Army pay.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAVEL PERMITS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).

Dr. Little: asked the Home Secretary whether, as there is much dissatisfaction and delay caused by the lack of knowledge of the regulations bearing on the grant of travel permits to Northern Ireland residents in Britain to enable them to visit their homes and friends in

Ulster, he will codify and issue these regulations for the information and guidance of all concerned?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Regulations governing travel between this country and Northern Ireland and Eire respectively have been codified in a pamphlet entitled "Travel between Great Britain and Ireland," copies of which are issued by the Passport and Permit Office to all persons who apply for information regarding travel between the two countries. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Dr. Little: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when a general answer has been given, in a day or two certain restrictions are issued which render a great deal of it nugatory, so that people do not know exactly where they are; and also that I have received letters asking me to explain why this is done, and I cannot explain it?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will now be able to refer his correspondents to this admirable pamphlet which we are about to publish.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: Will the Home Secretary take steps to see that all these requests for permits are treated alike; and is he aware that frequently it is a matter of influence whether permits are given or not?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, that would be my desire, and I would not wish people to be improperly treated.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN NEWSPAPER (PUBLICATION, GREAT BRITAIN).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the publication in this country of a German newspaper, entitled "Die Zeitung"; who are the publishers of the paper; and in what circumstances is the publication of a German newspaper permitted?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I understand that the publishers are the Maxwell Publishing Co. (1915), Ltd., and that the paper is intended for circulation among the many German-speaking people in this country whose sympathies are with the Allied cause. The reasons for its publication were stated in the leading article of its first issue on 12th March, 1941.

Sir W. Davison: In view of the shortage of paper, does not my right hon. Friend consider that our German sympathisers in this country would be able to read the news in English, or does he think that the printing in German is useful for propaganda purposes?

Mr. Morrison: I gather that the difficulty is that most of these people do not understand English and would not be able to read it. This question should not be put to me, but, though I am not quite sure, to the Minister of Information or the Minister of Supply.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not the fact that this paper is engaged in very strong anti-Nazi propaganda, that it is run by Germans, and that is is of great importance throughout the world that there should be such a paper published in this country?

Mr. Morrison: That, I understand, is the view we have taken.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Will the Minister arrange to place this paper in the Library, so that German-reading Members may see for themselves this exceedingly valuable piece of propaganda?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, RECEPTION AREAS.

Captain Profumo: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in some instances, owing to the increased number of children of school age in reception areas, the local school accommodation is insufficient to provide full-time education for many children; and whether he will take steps to instruct local authorities to obtain, by. requisitioning if necessary, additional suitable accommodation in order that all children may receive full-time education?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am aware that in some cases the local school accommodation in reception areas is insufficient to provide full-time education for all children in the area. The desire of the Government that all children should receive full-time education, where practicable, has frequently been impressed on local education authorities who have also been advised of the powers available for the

requisitioning of premises to provide additional school accommodation for the education of children transferred to the district under the Government evacuation scheme. I have no reason for thinking that any authority is unaware of the Government's policy in the matter of school attendance, but the position in each area is under constant review by my Department.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are enough teachers available, and, if not, will he assist local authorities to obtain them from whatever source they are available?

Mr. Ramsbotham: There ought to be, but I will do all I can in this connection.

YOUTH SERVICE ORGANISERS.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education how many youth organisers have now been appointed by local education authorities?

Mr. Ramsbotham: According to the information at present in the Board's possession, 58 local education authorities for higher education employ youth service organisers—27 counties and 31 county boroughs. In addition, three county authorities are known to have such appointments under consideration.

NECESSITOUS CHILDREN (CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR).

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of cases of new clothing and foot wear, respectively, supplied to necessitous school children in England and Wales by the public assistance committee, the Assistance Board and the education committees, respectively, in the 15 months ending 31st March, 1941?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Local education authorities have no power under the Education Acts to provide clothing and footwear to necessitous children. Arrangements are, however, made by education authorities under the auspices of the Ministry of Health to supply evacuated children in case of need with clothing and footwear from voluntary and other funds. Provision made by public assistance committees or by the Assistance Board does not fall within the purview of my Department.

29. Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Education what steps he is proposing to ensure that necessitous schoolchildren in England and Wales, like those in Scotland, have ample provision made for footwear and clothing for the ensuing winter season?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on 25th June.

Mr. Adams: Would the Minister be good enough to say why there should be preferential treatment granted to Scotland?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not think there is any question of preferential treatment for Scotland. This matter is dealt with in England under a different regulation.

Mrs. Hardie: Is it not the case that this provision is paid for by Scottish ratepayers and not by the Government?

TEACHERS (APPOINTMENT)

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of cases during the last two years in which education authorities and/or other local government authorities have declined to accept the recommendations of school managers as to the appointment of teachers, and as to the specific grounds upon which such refusal has been confirmed; and whether in all such cases other appointments have been made of fully qualified teachers?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Cases known to the Board are those in which they have been called upon to determine under Section 29 (9) of the Education Act, 1921, a question arising between the local education authority and the managers of a non-provided school. In the last two years there have been two such cases in which the local education authority have withheld their consent to the appointment of a teacher under section 29 (2) (c) of the Act: in both cases the Board confirmed the action of the authority, determining that consent had been withheld on educational grounds. I have no record of the other appointments made but it is to be assumed that they would be made in compliance with the requirements of the code.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the different

rates of benefit paid by societies under the National Health Insurance scheme; and will he give consideration in the Bill he is to introduce, to the pooling of all funds, so that one rate of benefit can be given to all insured persons?

Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part of the Question, as I informed the House on 22nd May, this Bill is designed to give effect to certain changes in the Health Insurance Scheme necessary to meet war-time conditions, and the proposal referred to by my hon. Friend will doubtless be one of the issues to be considered by the Committee which has been appointed by the Minister without Portfolio to undertake a comprehensive survey of the existing schemes of social insurance.

Mr. Tinker: Is it not unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman cannot deal, with this matter at once? Great discontent is being caused through the different rates of benefit. People cannot understand why, if they pay the same contribution, they should not get the same benefits.

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, this question has a long past history.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep his mind open?

Mr. Brown: This is not something that could be done as a temporary war-time measure, as it involves the whole structure of the insurance scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIEN DOCTORS.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Health, whether he will extend the scheme whereby the services of doctors of Allied and friendly nationality are employed in certain hospitals and institutions to cover those few doctors resident in Great Britain who have obtained their degrees in Switzerland, Sweden and other neutral countries?

Mr. E. Brown: The question of making a further order under Defence Regulation 32B so as to include the classes of doctors referred to by my hon. Friend is receiving consideration.

Mr. Strauss: Has this proposal the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Brown: I am discussing it with the Home Office Medical Advisory Committee and the Foreign Office. There are, however, complications as quite a number of countries are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Martin: asked the Minister of Health, whether, in view of the continued increase in the cost of living, he will take steps to introduce a sliding scale with regard to supplementary pensions which may enable such increases to be made from time to time as circumstances may require?

Mr. E. Brown: The responsibility for proposing changes in the Regulations governing supplementary pensions rests with the Assistance Board. The Board inform me that they have already considered the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's Question but have arrived at the conclusion that it would be neither practicable nor, in present circumstances, desirable to introduce a sliding scale into the Regulations, the official cost-of-living index figure being only one of many-factors which have to be taken into account.

Mr. Martin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present situation is causing a great deal of hardship to people of small fixed incomes? Could he draw the attention of the War Cabinet to this matter?

Mr. Brown: It is the responsibility of the Board, and I will draw their attention to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Buchanan: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Board that an increase, because of the rise in the cost of living, is overdue?

Mr. Brown: That is a different question. The Board take the view that there are other factors than the cost of living to consider.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (STAFFORDSHIRE).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has considered a resolution from the Newcastle, Staffordshire, Trades Council asking for the setting up of a transport regional advisory

committee and expressing concern over transport in the area; and what action is to be taken?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): Yes, Sir. Each Regional Transport Commissioner has already a regional transport advisory committee, which includes a representative of the trades unions. I am considering whether there is scope for a local consultative committee in the area in question. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what trade union is represented?

Colonel Llewellin: They are appointed, I believe, in consultation with the Trades Union Congress.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

PERSONNEL (CIVIL SERVICE RULES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information whether all persons employed under him are bound by the usual Civil Service rules?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Is it not one of those rules that the Civil servants in a Department are not allowed to criticise the Department, and therefore, was it in order for one of the chief officials of the hon. Gentleman's Department to criticise the Government, and say that the Department had been given a pitchfork to deal with a tank?

Mr. Nicolson: The British Civil Service is an organism and not a machine. It owes its vitality to the fact that even its most rigid rules are sometimes violated.

Mr. Mander: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the particular statement was not a proper one to be made by an official of his Department?

Mr. Nicolson: In the circumstances, I think the statement was of public value.

Mr. Mander: Is it to be understood that in future officials of the Department may make statements of that kind without any restraint?

Mr. Nicolson: A very exceptional official and in very exceptional circumstances.

POSTAL CENSORSHIP (NORTHERN IRELAND AND EIRE).

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Information whether, as the representatives of enemy countries find sanctuary in Eire, and, in order to avoid the leakage of information useful to our enemies, he will at once make arrangements for the censorship of all letters passing both ways between Northern Ireland and Eire?

Mr. Nicolson: This is a matter to which much attention has been given and the question of what further precautions are practicable and expedient is one on which my right hon. Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Dr. Little: Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Northern Ireland that this matter is a pressing one and should receive immediate attention, and will the earliest possible decision be taken on it?

Mr. Nicolson: Certainly.

CENSORSHIP PREMISES, BELFAST.

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Information whether he is satisfied that in the terms of the Whitley Council for civil servants the censorship building in Belfast affords sufficient accommodation for the staff employed; and what shelters have been provided in the case of air raids?

Mr. Nicolson: The premises originally occupied by the Belfast Censorship Unit were destroyed by enemy action on 4th-5th May, 1941. Emergency accommodation was secured which was found unsuitable. The Censorship Department was offered the present accommodation, which is situated outside the vulnerable area and is the best available in the circumstances. Certain alterations to the premises are about to be effected which will eliminate any overcrowding and provide adequate air-raid shelter accommodation.

Dr. Little: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will give great satisfaction?

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR WILLIAM BEVERIDGE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what is the present position, status and work, under the Government, of Sir William Beveridge?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): Sir William Beveridge recently relinquished his post on the staff of the Ministry of Labour and National Service and is giving his services without remuneration, except for travelling and subsistence allowances, as chairman of two committees. One of them, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio in reply to a Question on 10th June, is the Inter-Departmental Committee which is making a comprehensive survey of social insurance and allied services. The other, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service in reply to a Question on 12th June, is the committee which, by arrangement with the heads of the Service Departments, is examining the employment of skilled men in the Forces. Sir William continues to hold the post of chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, to which he was appointed in 1934.

Mr. Mander: Purely for purposes of clarification, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir William Beveridge is a civil servant or not?

Mr. Attlee: I have answered the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Mander: Is he bound by the rules of the Civil Service?

Mr. Attlee: He is acting in a temporary capacity, unpaid. If the hon. Member wants to know whether or not he is technically a civil servant, perhaps he will put a Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST AND NEAR EAST (NOMENCLATURE).

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now revert to the previous official description of the Middle East and Near East as corresponding to those countries of which Generals Wavell and Auchinleck are respectively in military command and so avert the present confusion of terms?

Mr. Attlee: This was considered: but the title of Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, is now so well established that any change now might lead to confusion. For some months at least many people would adhere to the old forms. Documents would lose their continuity. Mistakes costing lives might be made. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is of opinion that it is better to go on as we are.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is not this an affront to the English language, of which the Prime Minister is a master, in that the dictionary says that "middle" is that which is equidistant from extremities? What is the extremity on this side from which the Middle East is equidistant?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: What is the extremity of silliness in questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MACHINERY (SPARE PARTS).

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Agriculture what complaints he has received of the lack of replacement fittings for much of the agricultural machinery purchased from Australia and the United States of America; and what steps are being taken to remedy this?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am not aware of any complaint of the lack of spare parts for Australian machinery. Adequate supplies of spare parts are available in this country for servicing all classes of Australian machines purchased by the Ministry and these stocks will be maintained. With regard to spares for American agricultural machinery, I am not aware of any evidence of actual shortage at the present time. Arrangements have also been made for the importation of spare parts for American machinery to supplement stocks already in the country, and I am informed that these supplies are now coming forward.

RABBITS.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order to reduce the number of rabbits which are still excessive and damaging to crops, he will consult with the Ministry of Food with a view to fixing controlled prices on a sufficiently remunerative scale

to induce the persons concerned to kill rabbits in the early months of the autumn?

Mr. Hudson: The prices fixed for rabbits last season were at a level designed to encourage intensive trapping, without at the same time being so high as to give an incentive to the retention of breeding stocks. This principle will be adhered to in any future review of maximum prices for rabbits.

BUILDING SITES (GROWING CROPS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the action taken by a Government Department whereby it compelled the growers of 24 acres of corn, worth £500 when mature, to cut and sell the corn for a few pounds, which, had it been left for a further six weeks, would have been mature and formed a valuable contribution to the national larder; and whether he will confer with the Department concerned with a view to ensuring that no similar action is taken, and that where land is required for building it shall either be selected on ground which is not utilised for corn-growing or, where corn-growing land has been selected, an opportunity shall be afforded for first harvesting the crop?

Mr. Hudson: I know the case which my hon. Friend has in mind. The area in question was requisitioned after consultation with my Department in the absence of any acceptable alternative site on land of lower agricultural value, and owing to the urgency of the particular requirement it was not found possible to postpone development until the growing crops could be harvested. As regards the latter part of the Question, close contact is being maintained between my Department and the other Departments concerned with proposals involving acquisition of sites for building purposes, and every endeavour is made to minimise disturbance of food production interests. Should selection of land under crops prove unavoidable, all possible facilities for harvesting or salvaging are provided.

Mr. De la Bèere: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that it was a shocking waste of food, and perhaps just a moment more and that waste could have been avoided? What a pity.

Mr. Granville: Is it not a fact that there were other sites available, and will my right hon. Friend inform me whether the farmers will have to bear the loss?

Mr. Hudson: There were no alternative sites available, and that is why this particular site was taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX (BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD).

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of publishing the names of British subjects who have left the country and are refusing to pay sums of Income and Surtax owing?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): My hon. Friend's suggestion is not one which, as at present advised, I should feel justified in adopting.

Mr. Mander: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to my publishing some of these names?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member would have to consider the law of libel, slander, and matters of that kind.

AMERICAN VISCOSE CORPORATION.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether dealings have commenced in United States stock markets in the preferred and common shares of the American Viscose Corporation; and, if so, how do current prices compare with the prices at which the shares were sold to the public by the syndicate in pursuance of the agreement with His Majesty's Government?

Sir K. Wood: I have no current figure, but I understand that a week ago the preference shares issued at $ 107.5 were being dealt in around 111, and the common stock issued at $ 24 around 24⅜. The stock market generally moved slightly upwards since 26th May, the date of issue of the shares to the public.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend regard the market prices in America as some evidence in the assessment of the amount of compensation which will be payable to Messrs. Courtaulds?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot give any undertaking of that kind. Unless the matter

is settled between the Government and the company, it will have to go to arbitration.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) why it was decided to pay so large an underwriting commission as $ 4,099,200 on the sale of the American Viscose Company;
(2)why a commission of $1,822,800 was paid to the purchasing syndicate engaged in the resale of the American Viscose Company, especially having regard to the fact that the sum received by His Majesty's Treasury was much below the market value?

Sir K. Wood: The Viscose shares had to be disposed of by issue to the public, since, owing to American legislation, direct purchase by interests already engaged in the rayon industry was precluded. Underwriting commission is a normal incident of the issue of shares to the public, and the scale of the commission was dictated by practice and the state of the market at the time of issue. The sum of $1,822,800, the payment of which fell on the Treasury only in the event of a resale, was a commission paid to the syndicate as remuneration for the services rendered in connection with the operation. The course of the market in the shares does not indicate that they were issued at too low a figure.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really think that 7½ percent, underwriting commission on transactions of this kind is warranted? Is he aware that the total expenses involved amount to a sum almost equivalent to 15 per cent, on the net sum received by the Treasury? Is he also aware that it is reported that the American Treasury have insisted on a refund of 1,000,000 dollars because they consider the whole thing unsatisfactory?

Sir K. Wood: I think my hon. Friend had better put a Question down on the latter part of the information he has given me. So far as the other part is concerned, I would refer him to my statement in answer to this Question that regard ought to be had to the practice in America and the state of the market.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Chancellor really think it is satisfactory that such a high underwriting commission should be paid?

Mr. De la Bère: Was it not thoroughly unsatisfactory?

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED PROPERTY(RENT).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now inform the House as to the result of his examination promised on 27th May as to cases of complaint with regard to the serious hardship suffered by individuals under existing methods of requisitioning property; and what action the Government propose to take in the matter?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, I have asked Mr. John Morris, K.C., to consider generally such cases and to make such recommendations to me as he may deem desirable.

Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is now many months since I and other hon. Members drew attention to the very hard cases of people who have had their premises requisitioned, and surely, it does not require a K.C. to inform the Government that people who have had their property taken should not have to go on paying a rent in excess of what they are being paid by the Government? Surely, some arrangement ought to be made by the Government so that these people are not forced to pay a rent for something which they do not receive, as the Government or local authority have taken over the premises for which the individual is still obliged to pay rent?

Sir K. Wood: The matter is not quite as simple as my hon. Friend indicates. I think it is well to have a fresh mind brought to bear on the subject, and when we get a report we can see what decision to take.

Sir W. Davison: Will the report be published promptly, as this question has gone on for months now and people have had to incur heavy expenditure?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mathers: Does this cover requisitioning by all Government Departments?

Mr. Lipson: Will payments be retrospective?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot anticipate the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

EGGS.

Mr. Salt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Birmingham air-raid precautions canteens which have been using 150 dozen eggs weekly can now get none, resulting" in discontent in the service; and whether he can arrange for a reasonable supply of eggs being maintained for these canteens?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I recognise that the decision not to supply shell eggs for catering establishments may seriously inconvenience many canteens and cafes which have been large users, of eggs, but I regret that the number of shell eggs available for distribution will not be sufficient to enable an allocation to be made to the catering trade. I hope, however, that it will be possible shortly to make supplies of processed eggs available for use in catering establishments.

OLD POTATOES.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how many tons of old potatoes will be released to greengrocers to prevent a shortage of potatoes for the week ending 13th July?

Major Lloyd George: The whole of the end of season reserve supplies of old potatoes held by the Ministry have been released to the trade. Supplies are reaching the main consumption centres daily, but it is impossible to state the exact quantity which will arrive on the markets during the week ending 13th July.

Mr. Thorne: Is my hon. and gallant Friend making any arrangements for the purpose of getting supplies from Eire to this country?

Major Lloyd George: I shall have to have notice of that question, but we are hopeful that the supply of new potatoes will shortly be substanially increased.

STRAWBERRIES (PRICE, SCOTLAND).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why the special position of Scottish straw berry growers was not provided for when the controlled price was put in operation from 29th June, before the Scottish crop was ripe, but after English growers had


had weeks of sale at competitive prices; whether prior consultation took place with Scottish producers and merchants and with what result; and whether the Scottish position will be recognised in such matters in future?

Major Lloyd George: The special position of the Scottish strawberry growers was considered by my Department in consultation with Scottish producers before the Soft Fruits (Maximum Prices) Order was made. The Order was framed after full consideration had been given to the views which producers and traders had been invited to put before my Department, and the price fixed for strawberries was intended to provide the growers with a remunerative return on their crops as a whole. Representations on this matter have since been made to my Department and representatives of the Scottish growers have been assured that any evidence they may submit to show that the prices fixed for their strawberries are inadequate will be carefully considered.

Mr. Mathers: Was agreement obtained with the Scottish growers before this particular date was fixed? Is the Minister aware that this is looked upon as another indication of the way in which his Ministry ignore the special Scottish interests?

Major Lloyd George: I am afraid I cannot possibly accept the last part of my hon. Friend's Supplementary Question, because Scottish interests have been very carefully looked after. I can assure him that the interests of the Scottish growers were taken into consideration, and I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of having different dates for a maximum price order in different parts of the country. As I have said, they have been invited to show costs to support their claim, and, when they do that, they will have very sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Mathers: But was agreement obtained with the Scottish growers?

BUTTER.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that over 400 farmers retail butter at the Brecon market; and what the customers of these farmers are to do in future about their

supply of butter in view' of the inability of these farmers to supply margarine and cooking fats on the basis of the recent Order of the Ministry of Food?

Major Lloyd George: Farmers who have had registrations for butter and margarine will if they so desire be granted a licence to trade in cooking fats and their customers will have no difficulty. Farmers who have only sold butter in the past will not be affected by the new instruction referred to. I am, however, having inquiry made into the cases referred to by my hon. Friend, and will communicate with him as soon as possible.

HOUSEHOLDERS' RESERVE STOCKS.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of a recent prosecution which has caused some concern, he will indicate the policy of his Department towards those who have followed advice given to them and laid in a reserve store of food?

Major Lloyd George: The facts of the case to which my hon. Friend probably refers were extreme, as the person concerned had stored one ton of food in a household of three persons. The policy of my Department in regard to the Acquisition of Food (Excessive Quantities) Order has been previously stated in the House and is unchanged. The Order excludes from its scope reasonable stocks accumulated by householders in accordance with advice given by Ministers before the outbreak of war. The Order will, however, be enforced against persons who now acquire excessive quantities of food.

Mr. Lipson: While I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his very reassuring reply, can he give an assurance to the House that it is not the intention of the Minister to have a search made into houses of law-abiding citizens?

Major Lloyd George: I think that is a matter which must be left entirely to discretion. If we are satisfied that there has been hoarding, I think we are perfectly entitled to make an examination. It is clearly laid down what is the "normal quantity," but we have no desire to search all houses in this country.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Was this person a munition worker or a miner?

Mr. Davidson: Will my hon. and gallant Friend keep in mind that most of the workers of this country are quite willing to have their houses searched for extra food?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMESTIC COAL SUPPLIES.

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is conscious of the present confusion in the public mind respecting his coal rationing scheme; that the large majority of households in the country consume only a fraction of one ton per month, but that rationing invites the purchase of the permitted maximum: and whether he will make a clear and concise statement dissipating all these apprehensions?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am glad to have this opportunity of making it clear that this is not a rationing scheme, as commonly understood, but a scheme for limiting stocks to ensure that the supplies available for domestic stocking are distributed to the best advantage. The limit of one ton per month on deliveries is intended to apply during the summer months, except in special cases which are to be covered by the issue of licences from the local fuel overseer. Householders who have small stocking accommodation are advised to buy even when they do not need the coal for current consumption, as they will then be enabled to build up a reasonable reserve before the winter sets in. There cannot be any guarantee that all consumers can be supplied with the quantity stated at any given time. The whole idea is that access to supplies can be more readily secured if the amount to be delivered to individuals is limited. The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that as much coal as can be spared shall be put into stock and that the supplies shall be distributed in such a way as to give the maximum benefit of stocking to the largest number of consumers.

Major Adams: As the object at present is not to waste fuel, can the Minister direct his attention to the part of my Question where it says that "rationing invites the purchase of the permitted maximum"? Will he consider reducing

the permitted maximum and allowing licensing above that figure?

Mr. Grenfell: There is no publicly fixed maximum. There are uniform rates of supply, but there is no maximum, because if a householder can show that his need exceeds one ton per month, he is permitted to approach the local fuel officer and get a larger quantity. In regard to the smaller consumer who is permitted to buy one ton a month, if he does not use all his supply he can stock it for the winter.

Major Adams: Is the Minister not aware that the mere statement of a figure like this invites people to buy up to the maximum quantity?

Mr. Grenfell: I think this is one of the least harmful of many statements which have been made during this war.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister aware that the continued reference to the permitted supply of one ton per month is causing extreme resentment among people who cannot buy more than I cwt. per week? Is he further aware that that is furthering the demand, and justifying the demand, that there should be equitable rationing of coal supplies?

Mr. Grenfell: This is not rationing. We desire to help those who cannot stock enough for winter. I can assure my hon. Friend that the resentment of the consumers to whom he refers is more than cancelled out by the feelings of those who will obtain very much more coal.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Is it not illogical to allocate one ton per month, irrespective of whether there are a dozen or a couple in the household, or whether heating, lighting and cooking are done by gas, electricity or coal?

Mr. Grenfell: If this were a rationing scheme, it would be related to the particulars enumerated by my hon. Friend. But it is not a rationing scheme. It is intended to safeguard everybody having an equal chance of stocking some reserve of coal for next winter. It does not prevent anybody from having larger supplies.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that if the Government tackled the mine owners, they could get coal for everyone?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

LEAVE.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers' 48 hours' leave is curtailed in some cases, and even frustrated, when essential trains are missed by their being detained for medical examination and other formalities prior to leave; and if he will give instructions that 48 hours' leave commences only when the soldier is free to leave the regiment; and whether, also, commanding officers will be asked to facilitate, where possible, the convenience of fitting in with necessary train connections?

The Financial Secretary to the War Officer (Mr. Richard Law): I do not think that cases of this kind are sufficiently numerous to warrant the issue of special instructions. This is essentially a matter for arrangement within the unit, and, in the case of long journeys, I am sure that any application from a soldier to catch an essential train would be treated sympathetically.

TROOPS, ICELAND.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether all our troops who have been serving in Iceland are now being evacuated; and whether all the men who have been serving there will be given a reasonable relief before being despatched for service elsewhere?

Mr. Law: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. With regard to the second part, it is the normal practice for troops returning to this country from stations abroad to spend a period at home before being sent overseas again.

Mr. Riley: Has the hon. Gentleman in mind the fact that large numbers of troops now in Iceland were there all last winter and that it is very desirable that arrangements should be made that they should not spend a second winter there without an opportunity of relief?

Mr. Law: Yes, I have told the hon. Member on another occasion that, as far as the military situation permits we will ensure so far as possible, that the men who have spent one winter in Iceland will not spend another without some period of leave, but military considerations must come first.

PALESTINIAN JEWS (ENLISTMENT).

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for War, if His Majesty's Government is now prepared to avail itself of the offers of Jews in Palestine for service in His Majesty's Forces providing Palestinian Jews are prepared to accept service wherever it is thought best to send them?

Mr. Law: Facilities already exist for Jews in Palestine to enlist in various branches of His Majesty's Forces, and Palestinians have in fact served with distinction in Greece and Crete as well as in France.

Mr. Riley: Are adequate facilities being afforded to Palestinian Jews, are the opportunities being taken up, and are the Government availing themselves of the full desire of the Palestinians to place their services at our disposal?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. I am sure the Government are most appreciative of what the Palestinians are doing and are taking every advantage of their services.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL ON ALIENS (CHAIRMAN).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is to succeed Lord Lytton as chairman of the Council on Aliens?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make an announcement on this subject before long.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (ATTACK ON BRITISH EMBASSY).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Spanish Government have made apologies for the recent attack on His Majesty's Embassy in Madrid; and whether the persons responsible for that attack have been appropriately punished?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; and the Spanish Government have given assurances that those responsible for the incident shall be punished.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA (CRUELTIES).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ask the senior British officer now in


Abyssinia to collaborate with His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of Ethiopia, in preparing a report concerning the crimes committed by the Italian Fascist authorities and forces during their occupation of the country?

Mr. Butler: I should like to discuss this matter with the hon. Member.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether has has received any official reports of atrocities committed by the Emperor of Ethiopia's soldiers against Italian civilians or prisoners of war during the recent campaign?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the many known atrocities committed by the Italians during their occupation of the country, is it not a very remarkable fact that no reprisals were made by the Ethiopians? Is it not desirable that the Government should give publicity to the fact that they have so scrupulously obeyed the orders of their Emperor?

Mr. Butler: Yes, and the hon. Gentleman has done service in bringing the matter to the attention of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (SCOTTISH FISHERMEN).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the First Lord of the. Admiralty whether he is aware of the indignation among Scottish fishermen of lower medical categories that, owing to the rigidly high physical standards exacted by the Navy, they find themselves allocated to the Army for which, as fishermen they feel themselves quite unsuited, and denied the opportunity of serving at sea; and whether, in view of their experience outweighing any slight physical disability, he will ensure that fishermen will be given opportunities to serve at sea?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Austin Hudson): The physical standard required for entry into the Royal Navy has been, and is, Grade I,-but some exceptions to this rule have been made in the case of fishermen in view of their special qualifications for service in small ships. In accordance with this policy, such lower medical standards as are com-

patible with the duties required of these men and the necessity that no vessel or its crew is endangered by physical failure at a critical moment, have been accepted. At present no fishermen, with the exception of salmon and inshore fishermen, below Medical Grade I are being called up, and all Grade I fishermen who are called up are being enrolled in the Royal Naval Patrol Service.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that certain fishermen who come into the category A3 are definitely allocated to the Army and that they feel that a fisherman, even with a limp, with his knowledge of the sea, is equal to any number of landlubbers, though AI?

Captain Hudson: I have said in the last part of the answer that no fishermen below Grade I are being called up.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the forthcoming Business of the House?

Mr. Attlee: The Business will be as follows: —
First Sitting Day—Second Reading of the National Health Insurance, Contributory Pensions and Workmen's Compensation Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and Second Reading of the Colonial War Risks Insurance Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. If there is time, we shall begin the Committee stage of the Pharmacy and Medicines Bill.
Second Sitting Day— Second Reading of the War Damage to Land (Scotland) Bill. Further progress will also be made with the Pharmacy and Medicines Bill, and with the Colonial War Risks Insurance Bill.
Third Sitting Day— Supply (15th Allotted Day); Committee. A Debate will take place on Home Defence in Secret Session.

Earl Winterton: Purely as a matter of procedure, would it not be more correct to say that the House will be asked to espy strangers? (Interruption).—It is a very important point. The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that this matter is settled in advance, but it must be settled by the desire of the House.

Mr. Attlee: I agree with the noble Lord but by the custom of the House the Government announce the Business, and it is always subject to the wishes of the House. It is always understood that this announcement is made to meet the wishes of the House.

Mr. Crowder: Will it be in Order for Members to discuss the defence of aerodromes?

Mr. Attlee: Questions of what is in Order are not for me but for the Chair. The intention is however to put down a Vote and then have a Debate on the Adjournment in order to give the widest scope possible on the general subject of home defence.

Sir A. Knox: Will a representative of the Air Ministry be present?

Mr. Tinker: Will there be time on the first Sitting Day to get through the National Health Insurance Bill, and, if not, will further time be given, as it may be a contentious matter?

Mr. Attlee: We shall have to see how we get on, but we hope to get it.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that in the Debate on propaganda last week only eight back-bench Members were able to speak, will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion that there should be an opportunity for further discussion on propaganda before we adjourn for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Attlee: We have to consider that in relation to the amount of time available and the claims of other subjects on the time of the House.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I desire to make a short personal explanation to the House. On Tuesday, 1st July, the hon. Baronet the Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird) asked a Question with regard to the functions of the Welsh Church Commission, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, replied. I asked a Supplementary Question whether my hon. Friend was aware that the Chairman of the Welsh Church Commission earned £ 1,500 a year salary for ah hour's work a month. That interjection was based on information which I had at

the time, and which I thought was correct or I should not have made it. Since then I have had a very long and detailed letter from the Chairman of the Welsh Church Commission, couched in courteous terms, and I have made a full reply to it. I will not trouble the House with this correspondence, but I may be permitted to put the gist of it in a sentence by saying that, while I do not recede from the point of view I have taken and do take that the present work and duties of the Welsh Church Commission do not, or should not, justify the present salary of the Chairman of the Commission for part-time work, I am fully satisfied on the explanation he gives that the time he gives to the work is a good deal more than one hour a month. I wish to express my regret to the House for unwittingly giving expression to what was not a strictly accurate statement, and to offer my apologies to the right hon. Gentleman, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, for having made it.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1939.

Resolved:
That this House will, upon the next Sitting Day, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army and. Air Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1940, and the application of surpluses to meet expenditure not provided for in the grants for that year.—[Mr. James Stuart,']

Ordered:
That the Appropriation Account for the Navy, which was presented upon the 23rd January, and those for the Army and Air Departments, which were presented upon the 28th January, be referred to the Committee.— [Mr. James Stuart.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1941).

Estimate presented,—of the further sum required to be voted for the Service of the year ending 31st March, 1942 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 98.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Seventeenth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 100.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1941.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

PRODUCTION.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply, including expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: The Committee and the country have every reason to feel that in the past few days the course of events connected with the war has made the position and the outlook a little more satisfactory to us than appeared to be the case a few weeks ago. It is, however, still true to say that the war may, and in all probability will, be won in the factories and workshops of this country. In a recent speech in the House the Prime Minister referred to the fact that in the defence of Crete we were extremely short of guns, and it is probable that in this, the 23rd month of the war, we are still behind in the supply of guns, tanks, aeroplanes and everything in the way of munitions of war that is required to bring us victory. This Debate, therefore, is of considerable importance. The country has made great progress in these 23 months. That progress has been due, I think, in the first place to the Government's foresight in realising that we were in for a long war, and in harnessing our resources and those of the Empire and seeking the help of the United States, so that we might wage it successfully. But it is wise that we should take stock of our position in connection with the production of war munitions to-day, and see where we stand after these 23 months of war.
Over 18 months ago the House set up the Select Committee on National Expenditure, consisting of some 32 Members, representing all parties. It has

been the task of those Members, almost day by day since then, in London and in other parts of the country, to examine Government expenditure on the war and the results of that expenditure. It is fair to say that one of the first conclusions to which that committee came was that it was impossible for them to examine expenditure without examining efficiency, because efficiency is economy and any inefficiency or misdirected effort is waste. I think it is probably true to say that the members of that committee to-day have as comprehensive a picture as anybody could have, outside the Government, and perhaps even more comprehensive than any member of the Government could have, of the means we are employing, the successes and the failures of our effort. It is necessary to bear in mind the very considerable difficulties involved in the change-over from peace conditions to those of war forced upon us, and it would not be wise to suggest that, even to-day, that changeover is complete. We are not working at full efficiency. I said in the House not long ago that I did not believe that our people were working up to more than 75 per cent, of our possible efficiency and I cannot alter that opinion yet. There are bottlenecks in connection with production which require clearance. There are efforts which are wanting in direction and there is a certain number of people, both in the managements and among the workers, who require discipline. A large number of war factories are still coming into production and the task of recruiting the immense labour army required for this new effort cannot be accomplished even in a period of months.
I turn to some of the difficulties which face us and will try to indicate some of the methods by which we could attempt to deal with them. I take, first, the management side, and in my remarks in this aspect of the matter I propose to deal both with those managements which were previously engaged in private enterprise, and with the managements of Government factories because most of these problems affect both classes equally. As regards the private industries which were harnessed to the war effort, their response has been magnificent. There is no doubt about that. The response of private enterprise in this war has been splendid and that is the more commendable because


the financial policy which we adopted in relation to private enterprise was not entirely calculated to produce that result. There is a catch phrase which it is very natural and very agreeable to use at a time like this, to the effect that "no profits should be made out of the war." I think we should all agree that, in an ideal programme, no profits should be made out of the war. It may not give us the best results but actually we have gone further than that. Not only have we effectively altered the outlook of private enterprise in regard to the making of profit— that may be reasonable— but we have actually destroyed a certain amount of private capital and of private profits without: any return at all. I consider that the depreciation of machinery and the amount allowed for obsolescence in certain private enterprises is inadequate, and the losses due to the exceptional war effort will not be recovered. Therefore, looking at this matter, as I do, entirely from the standpoint of the necessity for securing production, I wonder whether we have gone too far in that restraint upon private enterprise to get the best results. The losses in that connection cannot, as I say, be made good now, and must at the end of the war be paid for out of previous profits or in some other way and, from the point of view of getting the best results, I am not sure that we have followed a very good procedure. The actual rise in wage rates, whether basic rates or excess earnings, has little effect upon employers because the only real purchaser of the production is the Government who indirectly foot the bill. Therefore the effect of the rise in wages is not directly felt by the employer.
Although I have no intention of encroaching directly in this Debate on matters connected with the Ministry of Labour, I am bound to say that 1 think the Minister of Labour— whose absence at the moment I regret, though I note that he is ably represented— has been definitely unfair to the employers in some of his public statements. Undoubtedly there are faults on the parts of managements, but such as have come to light are not less evident in the Government controlled factories than in private enterprise concerns and I think it a pity that the Minister of Labour should have gone out of his way to make some of the statements which have been made publicly in this connec-

tion. There is one clear, definite matter, however, which affects employers, or managements as I prefer to call them, both in Government and privately controlled factories and which should be attended to at once. That is the operation of the Essential Work Order. The Order only came into force in March and has not had a long run yet, and I do not wish to be dogmatic about it, but it is not working well. Both trade unionists and managements— in fact trade union leaders take perhaps the stronger line in talking of this matter— are having great difficulty over this Order and it will have to be redrafted in such a way as to get rid of its cumbersome machinery, enable quick decisions to be made and restore to some extent the power of the employer to deal with his labour force.
I suggest that that should be done by a system of local tribunals giving prompt judgment in cases in which it is clearly evident that men have to be dealt with for inefficient work or attendance. There are always a few in every community who have to be dealt with drastically and need discipline and, clearly, in cases of that sort the Essential Work Order must be made to function much more expeditiously than it is doing at present. At present the Order is mainly one-sided in its operation — in favour of the worker. With the exceptional cases which cause the most trouble there is nothing to be done, as I see it, except to put into force the power of de-reservation. If a man is reserved, he ought to understand clearly that he is reserved in order to work in the national interest and if he is not prepared to work in the national interest, there should be the power to a local tribunal to remove his reservation. The motto should be "Work or fight" and if a man will not work, the best thing to do with him is to send him to fight.
There has been, on the whole, a great improvement in co-operation between employers and trade union leaders on the problems constantly arising in new conditions and a great deal of agreement on what is required. I would like at this stage, because I may have to say something on rather a different aspect of the matter later on, to pay a tribute to the work of the Ministry of Labour officials throughout the country in their efforts, often successful, to smooth over difficulties and bring disputes to an end. I hope


that on another occasion we shall be able to deal with matters which affect the Ministry of Labour itself, such as the whole training of labour and this I appreciate would not be in Order to-day.
But there is still one matter connected with management to which I must refer, and that is the difficulties which have arisen over priorities. It is a matter which the Select Committee have brought to the notice of the Government over and over again. On paper and viewed from what may be described as the Cabinet level it seems as ideal as it could possibly be, but it does not work in the factories. It is a cause of trouble to the management in almost every factory to-day, in spite of all that has been done to remedy the difficulties. I suggest to the Government that they must again consider how they can get their excellent intentions carried right down to the workers in the factories, because that is where our troubles exist. There are still gaps and hold-ups in the supply of controlled materials, and there are misunderstandings in connection with certain people working in the factories owing to want of knowledge of the difficulties of the management in view of the hold-up in the supply of controlled materials. The more the worker is consulted and advised of the position in his own factory the better.
I turn to the position as it affects the workers themselves, men and women. The great bulk of labour is working extraordinarily well. New recruits are putting up with discomforts, and even hardships. The increased earnings have in some cases resulted in injustice. I am not now referring to basic wages, nor do I want in any way to touch upon the negotiations which take place between employers and employed, because that is outside our scope to-day, but what I am entitled to point out is the difficulties arising first from inequalities in earnings. By that I do not mean the inequalities as between the fighting man and his brother in the workshop. That is a difficult question which Parliament may have to face but I am not referring to that to-day when I speak of inequalities in wages. I mean the inequality in earnings between one man or woman and another doing almost similar work, very often in the same factory. It is a matter which is

extraordinarily difficult to deal with when one realises the position in which the Government are placed. We started all these new factories, in which there had been no previous experience. In some cases piece work rates were fixed before those concerned had gained sufficient experience of what the rates should be. They were fixed before the present output conditions were ascertained, and in some cases they have resulted, undoubtedly, in very large extra earnings.
But I am concerned merely with what prevents us from getting the production, and I say definitely that the present inequalities in the cases in which the Ministry of Supply, through their officers and managements— because this mostly refers to Government-controlled factories — have fixed the rates for piece work Have resulted in some cases in men deliberately concealing the work the' have done. In other cases it has resulted in men going out of the works carrying perhaps a pocket full of pay-slips which they would not present for payment at the moment because they were afraid to show the amounts they had earned. My point is that it is not a question of what a man has earned but of the holding up of production. The man does not go on with the work because he does not want at the time to make any more. He is afraid to make any more, and it is not unnatural.
Let me take instances of what is happening in factories under the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and I may say that perhaps I had better turn to them because I do not want the Minister in charge of aircraft production to think that I am not dealing with his side of the question also. In the early stages a factory started with, perhaps, a production of two or three machines a month. Gradually the output extended to six or ten a month, and as experience has been gained the output has extended to perhaps twenty. The piece work rates fixed in the early days are out of all proportion to the conditions to-day. That results in inequalities in wages and, what is worse, to the concealment of the possibilities of work that can be done and therefore to the loss of production. Let me take another kind of case in a certain aircraft factory near to the part of the country with which I am politically concerned. The other day there was a demand from a number of the young women in that factory to change over from one side


to the other. I shall be careful not to mention any details of the work. It was a case of merely going round a corner of an ordinary wooden boundary inside the factory. They were asked why they wanted to change over, and they answered "Because over there they are earning double our pay and it is work we can do just as easily as our own." And that was, in fact, the case, arising from the arrangement made for want of knowledge when the factory had been set up and in its early days. It is not a question of blaming the Government for these things, but these are difficulties which have arisen either because we did not plan sufficiently well to ensure that we should procure the best returns or because of this vast change over to which I have referred and the immense scope of the national effort necessary.

Mr. Stokes: Do I understand the hon. Member to be suggesting that it is advisable to alter piece rates once they have been fairly fixed?

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: No, I particularly wish to avoid that idea. When the rate has been fairly fixed there should be no question of altering it. The difficulty is to decide how to make the pay fairly equal for equal work, and that is what we have not done at present. In the example I have given we have two sets of girls working in a factory and one set being paid half as much as the other; naturally we do not get the best results.
Leaving the difficulties connected with the workers themselves, I turn to another, the Government, aspect of the matter. A mere rise in money wages without the control of prices is leading definitely to inflation. The worker is not benefiting at all.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but in view of what he said about the wages in the works he mentioned I should like to know whether those rates were fixed originally by agreement between the Employers' Federation and the unions or whether they were fixed by the employers direct with the workpeople?

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I cannot answer that off-hand. I can certainly find out and will give the right hon. Gentleman that information if he wishes. The factory is a Government factory and not a privately-owned factory and so perhaps

one of the right hon. Gentleman's friends can give him the answer.

Mr. Bevin: There are no Government aircraft factories.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I spoke of "Government-controlled," throughout these remarks. There are many Government-controlled aircraft factories. I was turning to the difficulties that face the country in connection with possible inflation, and I was saying that I cannot see that it is possible for us to go on with increasing costs of production without some control of prices. The position of the worker to-day, as we know from the" published figures, is no better than it was before the war. The cost of living has gone up considerably, and the workers certainly will not gain if the spiral gets really going, as it well may. I suggest that the Government consider now a definite policy about prices and wages.
Now I would like to say a word upon another aspect of our difficulties with these factories, the much discussed question of absenteeism. There has been a very great deal of misunderstanding about absenteeism and a very great deal of loose talk about it. There are two distinct kinds of absenteeism, and they must be separated and recognised, before we can effectively understand them. One kind is the avoidable, and the other the unavoidable, absenteeism. The latter is to some extent, however, due to the same causes as the former, but I want to deal first of all with the greater evil, avoidable absenteeism. Let the Committee be under no delusion; there is definite and considerable absenteeism in the works of this country. I could give plenty of figures. I have them beside me, but I do not wish unduly to detain the Committee. Let us not pretend that it does not exist, and let us consider why it is there. For every evil of this kind there is a definite cause, and there should be a definite cure.
We got our great effort first of all after Dunkirk, when there was a marvellous spirit in the country. Perhaps we expected it to go on, but we were wrong. It could not go on, as many reports clearly show. It has also been made perfectly clear that you cannot expect people to work continuously for seven days a week. Still more definite is it that, in trying to do so, you do not gain, but you lose, in production. It was made clear to us upon


the Select Committee that greater results are gained if you cut down hours of labour and demands on labour for overtime and Sunday work. We have been trying to work these factories beyond what is humanly possible, and we have had bad results. There is also the difficulty of the loss of production caused by monotony, especially in industries where it is accentuated by long hours and the inability to secure recreation. Other factors are want of outside interests, bad housing, bad heating and want of ventilation. All these causes are operating in the factories on which we depend for our production. There is also badly planned or insufficient supervision. Badly planned supervision is sometimes worse than insufficient supervision.
Many of the new factories for which the Ministry of Supply is responsible are set down in areas far away from the amenities to which the people working there have been accustomed. Long distances have to be covered to reach those amenities, and there are no houses in the neighbourhood. How can you expect people, already under such difficulties, to work excessive hours and to give the best production? I noticed yesterday that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply said:
With the help of my hon. Friend the Minister of Works and Buildings and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who is going to provide the labour, we hope to plan a great scheme of hostels and married quarters accommodation, which we must have before the winter sets in if we are to keep our factories properly employed and our people happy."—-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1941; col. 265, Vol. 373-]
I entirely agree with that statement, but why did we not do those things a year ago? We knew that these factories were going up miles from anywhere— in some cases perhaps 10 or 12 miles from a main town. Why did we not think of these things then?
Those are some of the things which are affecting our production and retarding our war effort. I intend that we shall face them, if anything I, can say will have that effect. We put those factories in the country districts. Why we did so cannot be gone into here, for obvious reasons, but there was no housing or transport. We put 5,000 or 10,000 workers into the factories. It is urgently necessary that

we should put into them 20,000 or 30,000 workers, but there are no canteens of a sufficient scale, no housing and no transport. The Minister said that whether those factories were well sited or badly sited was not worth arguing; I think it is very much worth arguing, but I do not propose to argue it now. I say we could have planned much better than we have done to meet the necessities of the people who work in the factories. I am not spending time on these matters merely to fix blame, but to assist the Government to decide what can be done to put things right. Something upon a much bigger scale than we have done hitherto is needed in the provision of amenities, transport and housing.
Unavoidable absenteeism is due, to some extent, to industrial fatigue, which has undoubtedly taken place throughout the country, since the workers were asked to put a special effort into their work. You can work machinery to the fullest capacity, but you cannot work human beings for more than a certain time. The sooner we realise the truth of that statement the better. Another matter which is undoubtedly affecting production is the want of realisation on the part of a large section of the workers of the urgency and necessity for their work. Even now a large number of workers do not appreciate the serious situation of this country.

Mr. Bevin: Not only the workers.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: The right hon. Gentleman was not present, I think, when I referred to the employers' side. I am taking these two sides separately on purpose, and now I am trying to deal with the general situation connected with the workers. Ministers of the Crown are to some extent to blame. It is no use putting out slogans like "Go to it" at one moment and saying what marvellous people the workers are in the next breath. That will not get us anywhere. There is far too much of it. Addresses might well be given in various works by people like commanders of submarines who could speak with effect in the shipyards, and fighter pilots in aircraft factories. Gentlemen who, besides being gallant officers, are also good speakers, are of great value in this way, but for politicians, or people like retired generals, to talk to the workers is really no good at all. Our propaganda, if we are to use


that word, is not to instil some idea of a novel character into the minds of the hearers but to impress upon all connected with the war effort, from the top to the bottom, the absolute urgency of getting that extra 25 per cent, of production which we are still wanting.
To recapitulate shortly, I would therefore say to the Government that there are certain steps which I think it is essential to take to secure the production we want. Hours of labour should be reduced to give the highest output over a long stretch; that is to say, hours of labour should be fixed in connection with a long-term policy to obtain the maximum output; apart from exceptional circumstances reduce overtime and get rid of Sunday work. More attention than hitherto should be paid to the questions of housing, transport and canteens, especially in the new Government factories. I know my right hon. Friend may accuse me of being one-sided in this matter, but I suggest that the private employers have done very well on the whole in the last matter, especially as the canteens they have provided will be of little or no value after the war and they have been made to pay for them. It is mainly in the new factories that the need is most felt.
The minority of slackers— and there are slackers— must be dealt with drastically by an amendment of the Essential Work Orders, so that there can be immediate decisions, restoring to the management, whether Government or private, the power to deal with and discipline their own people, and a quick working local tribunal set up. There should be Treasury re-examination of the position in regard to allowances for depreciation and obsolescence of machinery, and an overhaul of contract terms. As soon as possible, and wherever possible, the "cost plus" system must be eliminated. It is the most fatal of all forms of contract. A still greater number of small firms should be included than at present. It is quite true that there has been a very gratifying change in that direction in the last 18 months and in the last year in particular, but there is still production power in the hands of some of the smaller firms which has not been harnessed to the war effort. The Government should again examine the priority organisation and get the matter cleared up. We want to stop

competition between Government Departments to secure production. In spite of the Production Executive, you still see Government Departments fighting to get production out of certain works, and contrary orders, contrary statements about priority, and contrary demands for immedate attention are made. We want a wages and prices policy to secure the country and the workers against inflation, the worst thing of all for the workers. We must not destroy all recreation or eliminate holidays; if we do we shall not get the best work. I know that nine-tenths of the workers are as keen as anybody else to do everything they can, but it will not do to depend on that alone, because you will not get the required production.
Finally, may I stress the necessity for Government action to restrain the competition which is going on among Departments, and to reduce the very large number of "chasers"? That word may not be well known to all hon. Members, but it means the people sent down from the different Ministries to follow up production. There is a number of them in all the areas of the country, and it is hard not to believe that some central organisation is really required. The more I see of these problems the more I come to the conclusion that we want a Ministry of Munitions. There must be co-ordination. This continual competition between the Government Departments must be stopped. Before my right hon. Friend came in I paid a tribute to the work of his officials. It is excellent, but let me give the Committee an idea of what it means. In one industrial district of England you have the following officials: a Chief Conciliation Officer, a Divisional Controller, a Divisional Welfare Officer, a Superintendent-Inspector of Factories and staff, a Chairman of the Labour Supply Committee, a Regional Ministry of Supply Representative, an Area Officer of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, an Admiralty Area Officer, another Area Officer of the Ministry of Supply, a Chairman of the Regional Board, a Divisional Labour Supply Inspector, a Labour Supply Inspector Assistant, and so on— all in one industrial area. Most of these men are doing excellent work, but if the system remains as it is, I want them to have more power, which I believe is more common in the Admiralty than in other Depart-


ments, so that there shall be less reference back. I want more power in their hands. It seems to me that all that shows the necessity for co-ordinating machinery at the top.

Mr. Bevin: I am very anxious that the Committee should not be under any misapprehension. My hon. Friend has quoted these officers of mine and has assumed that they are independent. But they are all under the Divisional Controller. The separate branches are co-ordinated under one controller.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: My right hon. friend surely does not tell me that he is in charge of the regional representative of the Ministry of Supply, the Area Adviser of the Ministry of Aircraft Production and so on?

The Chairman: This is entirely out of Order. It is a little difficult, because on questions of Supply one cannot entirely shut out matters which are connected with labour, but the Ministry of Labour Vote is not before the Committee, and if we were to go on to matters of that kind we should be very much out of Order, and it would make it impossible to have a satisfactory Debate on the subject when we do come to the Ministry of Labour Vote.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I fully appreciate that point, and perhaps you will allow me to draw your attention to the fact that I have carefully avoided any reference at all to the enlistment of labour. I have confined myself to the employment of labour in the factories, and I am concerned with the control of labour. In conclusion, I hope the Government will appreciate that I am not putting these matters forward in any spirit of carping criticism. I realise the difficulties and, as I said at the beginning, on the whole we have done wonders. The point however is that we are not getting the full production we could get and we must have it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) is in a unique position, which enables him to make the sort of speech he has made to-day. May I remind him, and all others who cheered his speech, that some of us have for a long time been advocating the setting-up

of a Ministry of Munitions and have been calling the attention of the House to the deplorable housing conditions of our people? We have got very little support for all the things he has mentioned to-day. At one stage in his speech he referred to the fact that earnings are abnormal.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Not all of them — some of them.

Mr. Smith: Earnings generally. I want to call his attention to the fact that in this country there is almost complete confidence in the piecework machinery in the heavy industries, and that confidence has been built up as a result of years and years of hard work by the employers of this country and by the representatives of the workpeople. As a result of that, agreements have been arrived at which provide that, when a change takes place in the method of production, or when there is a change in design or in the quantities of products being produced, the prices are automatically open to revision by mutual agreement. Therefore, the charges which the hon. Member has made, and the charges which have been made in the public Press with regard to piecework machinery, are only an indication that the people making these charges are not conversant with the machinery which is in operation in industry in this country. I wish to begin by deprecating the statement made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) yesterday. It would be out of Order to proceed too far with regard to this, but I want, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, yes, and on behalf of the movement they represent outside, to deprecate the statement he made yesterday of a personal character. Some of my hon. Friends on this side think he was referring to the Minister of Labour; I have doubts as to whether he was. If he was, I wish to say to him that he or anyone else can bring forward the best university-trained personnel in this country, and I will support the Minister of Labour on any current question in regard to our needs in the war situation.
To deal with something that is in Order, the hon. Member made a number of statements in which he was critical of the designers in our factories, of the people engaged in the hard work of development and research, and in regard to the engineers. I wish to say that, beyond a shadow of doubt, our aircraft and other


products manufactured in this country are qualitatively superior to any produced in any other part of the world, and these products can only be produced in this way because of the whole-hearted cooperation between research workers, designers, development workers and the engineers. I hope this House will be on its guard about this, because I know the danger from a certain quarter which now has a large influence in the Ministry of Supply. I want the country to be determined to maintain the standards it has set up. I have had the experience of meeting representatives from all parts of the world, including the Russian trade representatives. They say that they prefer British products to those from any other part of the world, even though ours often cost more than the products of other parts of the world. They go on to admit immediately that the maintenance charges of our aircraft, our mechanism, are considerably less than those of products made in other parts of the world: they are more reliable. Therefore, ours are preferred to those of other parts of the world. I hope that the Minister of Aircraft Production, in particular, and the Minister of Supply will be determined that we are to maintain the standards we have built up in the past.
One of my most fruitful experiences of the past few years was to work with a very fine group of experienced young engineers, who pooled their ideas and experience. In 1938 this resulted in a memorandum setting out the need for a Ministry of Munitions. Then, because the House at the time turned that down, they got to work and produced a memorandum, which was circulated to a number of people now holding prominent positions in the Government, advocating the setting up of a Ministry of Supply. Later, this same group were responsible for that constructive contribution entitled "Labour and Defence." Some of us long ago saw the danger of the growing expansion of German armaments, and our consciences stimulated us to work. Ronald Cartland was an example of what I mean, with his clear-sightedness, his great energy, his far-seeing qualities, his courage— and it took some courage in those days— drive, and dynamic personality, all those qualities that find avenues of service in America and Soviet Russia in particular.
Though I have not time to develop this aspect too far, I have directed attention to it in order to prepare for a constructive suggestion which I intend to make later on. In this country— and there is historical reason for it, but we cannot afford to allow it too much opportunity in wartime— there is an organic weakness in the Government Departments, in industry and in the area machinery in the Ministry of Supply in particular. There is an example fresh in the public mind in the changes brought about in the A.T.S. in the past few days. There are now great waves of renewed energy in this country, determination, and interest in our problems, throughout the industrial area. The Minister of Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary would be able to inform the House of this development. The renewed vigour and energy of our people are now at a greater height than ever in the past. The effect of the great strain on our people has now been removed. As you move among them you can feel there is a new effort beginning to manifest itself. I wish to ask the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, Are we going to capitalise this new feeling, are we going to harness this energy, are we going to profit by our past mistakes, are we going to take steps to maintain this new feeling? I desire to make a few constructive suggestions with that end in view.
In my view, as a result of careful examination, the Ministry of Supply organisation is not yet satisfactory. At the beginning of the war, when some hon. Members were demanding that small units of production should be brought more into the picture, I often felt a little annoyed, as I knew, as a result of experience, that large-scale industry, generally speaking, obtained the best results. But I do say that we should have organised the small producers more than we have done at this stage. They have still too many idle machines at night and during other hours in the day-time. The Board of Trade have carried out their concentration of industry policy. They are driving together nucleus firms. Surely, the Ministry of Supply could do the same, not by closing firms down, but by making each small unit produce the maximum number of parts of products which it is best able to do. This is a mechanised war, and we cannot afford inefficiency and lack of organisation of the kind which we have at the present time.
I believe we need to reorganise the area machinery. I wish to emphasise what I am going to say to all the Ministers on the Front Bench. Too many people who were retired in pre-war times are running the present machinery. Too many people who were retired in pre-war times are running the area machinery in particular. The result is that when the young, virile representatives of the employers and workpeople get into touch with these people they go away disheartened and heart-broken, and it has an effect upon them that we all wish to avoid. Here is an example taken from the "Times" of 24th June. This is the first time I have ever quoted the "Times."

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Why?

Mr. Smith: For very obvious reasons. If the hon. Member remembers the policy that the "Times" and those associated with it have pursued during the past few years, he will realise that they have a great deal of responsibility for the present position. The "Times" says:
It is an amazing thing that a regional commissioner, when asked to advise an important industrial undertaking on measures in anticipation of invasion, could only reply that he must wait and see what form the invasion took.
What bigger condemnation could you have of a large number of people filling important positions in industrial centres in this country? That kind of attitude is too common. If the Prime Minister had adopted such an attitude, where should we have been now? We must have an efficient regional organisation for production. In my view, there are too many advisory committees. I believe in advisory committees where necessary, but what we want is a regional organisation with real power and with full authority to obtain the maximum production in the areas in which they function. Victory will not come of itself, as many people think it will. It will be secured only by efficient organisation, determination and courage. I know of one factory— I want to emphasise this— where a young production engineer was given full power to study methods of production. He made surveys, and checked up on delivery dates. He was very tactful as you have to be, especially when you are young, and used his authority with care. Within a

few months, there was a steady increase in aircraft output from that factory. In a year, there was a great increase. The board of directors of the group of factories called him to the board room, and highly congratulated him on the results. That policy could be followed in many factories.
The Minister of Supply and the Minister of Aircraft Production should set up a small corps of young production engineers, trained in large-scale industry, and give them full power and authority, to be used with discretion. I guarantee that that would result in a great acceleration in production. I want the Ronald Cartlands of industry to be given a chance, as they are in America and in Soviet Russia. Owing to historical reasons, which we cannot afford to perpetuate in war-time, they are being held back in this country. There are exceptions, I know. I know of one production engineer in the Midlands, who is about 70 years of age, but who in energy and in physique is many years younger. I want men of great experience like that, who can command the confidence of young men, to be asked to form groups of young production engineers. I put a Question the other day to the Minister of Air-'craft Production, and the Parliamentary Secretary replied:
Undoubtedly there are certain factories where improvements could be affected by the institution of more modern methods."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1941; col. 1202, Vol. 372.]
That is a condemnation. We must have the maximum production. It is well known among aeronautical engineers that our fighters are considerably superior to those of any other country. Why cannot we produce more and more of them, in order that people who are fighting our battles in other parts of the world, as we have been fighting theirs during the past two years, can have the benefit of our machines? The Minister of Labour spoke at a very representative conference in Manchester last week-end, at which there were delegates from the trade unions concerned with some of the largest aircraft and engineering factories in this country. He made a speech which was greatly appreciated, and which would send the men back to the factories on Sunday and on Monday reflecting the atmosphere of that conference in a way which would be of great value to the men with whom they worked. He referred to the need


for maintaining rhythm in production. I want to quote from a letter from a Midlands manufacturer, which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" yesterday, on the subject of rhythm in production. I shall take only one or two extracts; but it is a very important letter, and I hope that the Minister of Supply will study it. The writer says:
Mr. Bevin, speaking to representatives of employers and trade unionists, made good use of the word ' rhythm ' as the chief ingredient in a prescription for continuity of purpose. Nowhere, however, in production is rhythm more important than in continuity of orders to firms which have specially laid themselves out for certain supplies.
He goes on:
The result, uneconomical and discouraging to a degree, is that not only is the rhythm of manufacture destroyed, but the carefully and expensively trained semi-skilled labour is either dispersed and lost or employed in work of no importance in order to retain it in readiness for expected orders (incidentally spreading the ' disgruntlement ' through the works). If this trouble is anything like general there seems to be need for a co-ordinating section acting with the various regional area officers in order to maintain reasonable continuity of work for firms whose circumstances are known.
That letter supports the plea that I have been making, for an improved regional organisation. In order that our people shall be encouraged, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of that matter, and deal with it as soon as possible. In regard to management, I do not want to open up a controversial issue, but I want to make one or two constructive suggestions, which I think will assist in eliminating suspicion and unnecessary friction, and will lead to an increase in output. Shop stewards are elected because, generally speaking, as a result of their record of service and general character, they have the confidence of their fellow-workers. Generally, these men are not lackeys or touts of the boss. They would refuse to stoop to anything of an underhanded character, and they have the complete confidence of those engaged in the factories. Where the management have been big enough to provide machinery to allow the men to speak in a representative way, there is very little friction. Grievances are dealt with immediately, with the result that they do not gather momentum. The Ministers of Labour, Aircraft Production, and Supply should get together as soon as possible, and consider what steps they should take in order to

get representative committees of that kind set up in all factories. Had there been more time, I would cite evidence, which I have here, to prove what I say. Committees were set up in 1918, and it is agreed that they played a big part in maintaining production.
One of the biggest difficulties of the present time, with regard to absenteeism and other problems, is the question of transport. Members on this side have raised that matter time after time during the last twelve months. The transport system is still far from satisfactory. Here are one or two instances of how it affects our people. Even in the summer time, owing to the lack of transport, it is the common practice for them to have to stand for ten or twenty minutes, and longer in some cases, in queues in the early morning, waiting for an omnibus. Imagine what that sort of thing means in the winter time, when there is more omnibus traffic. In the summer, thousands of our men and women travel to and fro on bicycles, and some by motorcar. As soon as the bad weather comes these men and women have to travel on the omnibuses, with the result that in large industrial centres there is congestion of a kind of which no one has any idea unless he has seen something of the traffic. This is how it affects production. Everyone has to turn out earlier in the morning which is bound to have an effect upon production. Workers have to stand in queues, often being almost starved through, and often in foggy and rainy weather or after standing in the snow, they arrive at their work in such a condition that they have to attend to their clothing. The cumulative effect of all this has an important effect upon morale and upon output, and I suggest that before the bad weather comes again the whole of the Ministers responsible should get to work in order to plan co-ordinated transport facilities in every industrial centre as early as possible.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) always gives the Committee a most thoughtful examination of the industrial problem, and he has done so again today. I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) upon his magnificent speech. It seemed to bring fresh air and vitality almost for the first


time into this Debate. I returned to the House a day or two ago after an absence, with the exception of one or two fleeting visits, of over eight months on military service. During the latter part of that time it fell to my lot to see and to learn something of the day-to-day progress of the war in the Middle East. There was made available to me in particular something of the real character of the supply position out there and its effect upon the strategy of that campaign. I give away no military secret when I say that the account given to the Committee yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Lieutenant Brabner) is abundantly true.
In the office in which I was placed there were laid on my table each morning the cables that came from the Middle East. Each morning there were placed beside them the casualty lists; and as the grim drama gathered momentum— in Libya, Greece, Crete, Iraq and in Syria— there seemed to come a cry from the fighting men in those countries; a cry for arms, for guns, tanks, anti-tank weapons, aeroplanes, ships, for weapons and arms of any and every kind with which to defend their lives and their homes and the country for which they were fighting. It was a cry that pierced the heart of everyone of us whose duty it was to read these dread documents. One had visions of men— Scots, English, Irish, Welsh— comrades whom we knew—lying there battered and bleeding, parched and hungry, thousands upon thousands of them, left there to die or fall into Nazi captivity. Why? Largely because, as the Prime Minister has said, they were denied the weapons with which to defend themselves.
That was my daily experience for many weeks. Often I felt desperate, yet I could do nothing about it. Supply was outside my province. It was in part in order to endeavour to help in some way, however small, to meet that dire need for greater arms that I sought release from military duties. For this House is the Council of Action of the nation. It is to Parliament that the cry of these gallant and forlorn men is directed. It is we here who should answer and must answer that cry to-day if freedom is to be saved, and further grievous and unnecessary sacrifice is to be avoided. I mean no disrespect whatever to hon. Members, and still less

to this House, which I revere, but with thoughts of that kind burning in my mind you will perhaps appreciate the disappointment, nay dismay, with which I listened to the Debate that took place yesterday. Although I sat through nearly the whole of the discussion I could discern no sign, no spark of realisation, on the one hand, of the tragedy of those lost divisions out in the Middle East, or on the other hand, of the vast and immediate problems demanding solution in our factories here at home. Even the Minister who replied yesterday, though his speech was admirable as an exposition of the work of his Department, seemed to me out of touch with the immensity and real nature of his task, and, above all, with its urgency, and that is the point which was so admirably dealt with by the hon. Gentleman earlier to-day.
It is not enough to assure the Committee, as did the Minister yesterday, that one Department now purchases for all the Supply Services; not enough to tell us that close co-operation now exists between the heads of the Services, and that that delicate problem of priorities is now a little less delicate than it was. It was not nearly enough for the Minister of Labour, who, I am sorry to say, has now left the Front Bench—I was hoping that he would be here—to present the House, as he did a few days ago, with yet another advisory committee on production, with other satellite advisory committees to be established in different parts of the country. There is no comfort in his boast a few days ago that "Britain has reached the highest point of production per man in history," because I do not think anyone believes that to be the case. It may be true of one or two selected trades where machine power has been multiplied— it would be appalling if it were not so. But for the munitions (including aircraft) industry as a whole, it is a statement unsupported, and, I believe, unsupportable, by any kind of evidence that is available either to him or to the House. On the contrary, as the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkin-son) said yesterday, and as evidence which has reached me from many sources, some of which I have been able to check, proves abundantly, the output per man in many kinds of war work is less, and in some cases much less, than in the last war 25 years ago.
But indeed the Minister of Labour disproves his claim by his own words and actions. If output is so satisfactorily high, why these endless, pathetic appeals for higher production to workers in almost every trade engaged in war supplies?

The Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that the Vote for the Ministry of Labour is not before the Committee to-day.

Mr. Stewart: I was thinking of the Minister in his capacity as Chairman of the Production Executive, which, I believe, would fall within the scope of this Debate. Why the amazing statement of the Chairman of the Production Executive of a few days ago, "I do not care how much you earn, so long as you give us the goods. … We will pay you, but we want the output"? Had there been time or a more favourable opportunity, I would have paused to examine that announcement, which I regard as the most serious and certainly the most questionable of all the many extraordinary utterances of the right hon. Gentleman in recent weeks. I can only ask him, or whoever is to reply to the Debate to-day, one or two questions. Does that announcement represent the considered policy of the Cabinet? If so, are we to assume that money, and money alone, is to be the inducement— I do not like to say bribe— offered to British workmen to produce arms in time of war? Is there now to be no limit at all to wages paid in the supply services?

Sir Robert Young,: Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard of piece work, and is it not quite a legitimate thing for a Minister to say that men should make whatever they can if by so doing they are supplying an ever increasing quantity of equipment?

Mr. Stewart: I want to know what that means. Is the same principle to apply to related services, such as agriculture, and will it extend to salaries and to profits? If all this is so, what then becomes of the Chancellor's Budget, which, in his own words, was based on the assumption that "the wages situation will be held where it now is "? Already since the Budget wages in 28 different trades have risen, and there are demands for further rises in many other trades. These are serious questions vitally affecting the war effort

and the effort of the two Departments concerned, and I think the Committee is entitled to an answer from the right hon. Gentleman or another member of the War Cabinet. I do beg the Government to abandon once and for all this degrading, timorous and futile business of appealing to men to do what is their duty in time of war. If there is any doubt about the futility of it, let the Minister of Labour say how many miners he got as a result of his appeals to men to move. These appeals are resented by conscientious men, and I believe they are demoralising to workers in all parts of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman is rather free in his denunciations of other people. He has called some of us "fifth columnists," but he had better be careful that he is not soon dubbed by the nation as the most dangerous "fifth columnist" of all. Certainly, the Fighting Services, who get neither bonus nor double pay for Sundays, and whose womenfolk are living on an allowance not more than one-fifth of the income of neighbours working in a munitions factory, have already a suitable title to offer.

Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has just made a very serious statement. Does he suggest that the Fighting Services in this country regard my right hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Production Executive, as endangering the war effort?

Mr. Stewart: What is the complaint of the Fighting Services? It is that whereas the neighbour next door is receiving £ 10 or £12 per week, their wives are getting only 35s. a week. This is not the way to fight Hitler. This is playing at production. What is worse, it is playing at politics. One is tempted sometimes to feel that there is more blatant politics in some phases of this Government administration than in any war administration of the last century. Let us have done with it. It is neither appeals nor mollycoddling that the people want; it is inspired direction. The people are ready and eager to serve, but because; there are lazy and dishonest men among us you must lay down your laws and you must rule.
Thirteen months ago, in this House, a great speech was made on behalf of the Government, in which it was said:
The Government are convinced that now is the time when we must mobilise to the full


the whole resources of this country. We must throw our whole weight into the struggle. Every private interest must give way to the urgent needs of the community … it is necessary that the Government should have complete control over persons and property— not just some persons of some particular class of the community but of all persons, rich and poor, employer or workman, man or woman, and all property. … The Minister of Labour will be given the power to direct any person to perform any services required of him. … The Minister will be able to prescribe the terms of remuneration, the hours of labour and conditions of service."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1940; cols. 151–155, Vol. 361.]
These words were delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal and were received with acclamation in all parts of the House. The Bill which was introduced was passed unanimously and at once and was accepted with enthusiasm by the whole country. The nation was thrilled; new hopes sprang in men's hearts; everywhere it was said, "Thank God, at last we mean business!" How the mighty have fallen during the last 13 months. The bright flame has spluttered and fizzled out. There is no longer fire but only noisy fury. Let us rekindle the flame. Let us recapture the temper and policy of the Emergency Powers Act which this House passed. Let us do that big, courageous thing which we undertook to the nation to do, and if the spirit has gone out of the present production chiefs, let them give way so that a new and more manly force may inspire our effort. There is one such available now— tried, tested, proved and to-day, I believe, as vital and as vigorous as before. Where he now, that old war leader, that champion in danger, that matchless organiser? Where is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)? He ought to be serving his country; the nation needs him. Has he been invited to join the Cabinet? I cannot believe that the Prime Minister has not sought his assistance at the present time. Has he declined the invitation? It is incredible that so valiant a patriot has not heeded the call. With such a spirit as his revitalising the War Cabinet, buttressing and supporting the Prime Minister in his lonely vigil, we can regain that first fine fighting rapture of last June and make the tools for early victory.

Sir Robert Young: To-day we have listened to three very interesting speeches, and I have no doubt that what

was said by the hon. Member who opened the Debate will be considered by the various Government Departments. We heard many excellent suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith). The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) was inclined to criticise a little bit unfairly. He spoke of what was being said by the men in the Army about the allowances made to their wives, and I have no doubt that one can find criticisms of that kind, but it was my experience during the last war— and I daresay it would be my experience during this war if I were to move among the men in the Army, as I did then— that the first thing they said to me, and to the representatives of Labour in the House and in the Government, was that whatever happened we must not lower their wage standards against the day when they returned. I regret that the hon. Member for East Fife goes about encouraging people to find fault with the agreements arranged between employers and workmen. That is not something which helps the war effort.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I was only stating very serious facts.

Sir R. Young: In rising to express a few thoughts on the important topic we are discussing, I do not wish particularly to controvert or to confirm any special points raised by the hon. Member. I take it that every hon. Member is of opinion that our duty is not so much to criticise the Government as to help them in the very great, responsible, and difficult task which confronts them in speeding up the production of war materials, of which there is at present a very great shortage. If any special blame devolves upon anyone for hindering production, those in controlling positions are best able to tell us where that blame lies. In that connection, I was very glad to read that the Minister of Labour has publicly stated during the past few days:
The number of lost working days during the past year was small compared with the number of lost working days during any and every year of the last Great War.
I do not say that any of those lost days during the past year were excusable, but I do say that it is our job to find out how and why they were lost, and as far as possible prevent the causes from reappearing in the days that lie immediately ahead. Those who take part in this Debate will render no useful service if their


contributions are based on a readiness to advertise ill-informed statements of what is taking place in our workshops and munitions factories. Neither will it be fair criticism to forget the shortages caused by the disasters in France, Greece and Crete, plus the loss and interruption to our manufacturing agencies through enemy action in this country. In the main, we salvaged the men— which is the proper thing to do— rather than the war materials in those theatres of war. Moreover, I think that certain critics should not ignore their own attitude towards rearmament in the years immediately preceding the war. If we are not now in the required state of productive efficiency which is necessary for victory, I have no hesitation in telling my fellow workmen that the complacency of the House, as well as the failure of some managements and some men, is to blame. In any case, I do not think we have any right to blame the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Aircraft Production; they have given warnings and made appeals to the country to get a move on in its productive effort. I remember when the Prime Minister sat on the Front Bench below the Gangway opposite and asked for the healthy growls of 50 Government supporters. In the Division Lobby, I asked him whether he would get them, and he replied that he would not get five. I do not think he did.
What is hindering production at the present time? Reference has already been made to the method of fixing priorities for this, that, or the other essential manufacturing commodity. Is that method working smoothly and swiftly? Is it too rigid? Some of us think that it is. Or is it flexible enough to be switched over to the thing that we want to-day as against the thing that we wanted yesterday? During the last war, we had periods of acute shortage of war materials. My duty as general secretary of a large trade union was to assist in speeding up production. That was not an easy job. Production was hindered by war profiteering on the one hand, and by industrial disputes and stoppages on the other hand. I am glad to say that only to a limited extent do these things exist to-day. At that time we had to bring skilled men out of the Army. Now we have in the Army, and need in the Army, more skilled men than

we did then. I remember that in the last war some of those skilled men, after a conversation I had with them at Ypres, said, or rather shouted it after me, "Hurry up with the shells." There are many shortages to-day. Every Government Department admits this. During War Weapons weeks the hoardings advertise the fact aloud. The shells must be hurried up in many different directions to-day, by the Government this time as well as by the country.
After going from factory to factory, and going among the workmen, I believe that the Government, the employers, and the workmen, know that increased production of those on war work is necessary to make up the shortages. The question for us to decide at the moment is whether those shortages are unavoidable or blamelessly explainable, whether they can be prevented, and if so how, and how soon in the very near future. Perhaps the Government will be able to tell us that. Provided we have the luck to escape the dislocation and destruction of our factories and shipyards and of our airfields, provided we have sufficient supplies of the materials required for the manufacture of urgent war supplies, and provided we have workpeople in sufficient numbers in our factories to do the work, then only bad management or mismanagement on the part of the Government; or the employers, or absenteeism or ca'canny on the part of the workers, can restrict production.
Let me take these in their order, and if the statements I have heard are facts they may serve as examples, although I do not vouch for accuracy, because only investigation will prove that. Such statements are the basis for much misunderstanding. Some of these statements arise to my own personal knowledge from observation minus correct information. Here is one against the Government. I am told that some American aeroplanes are overhauled on delivery. I can understand there being inspection, examination and adjustment, but it is alleged that these overhauls reduce the speed of these machines by 30 miles per hour, much to the annoyance of the American representatives. If that be true, there must have been something wrong with the drawings and specifications in the first instance, in so far as they were incapable of producing the kind


of machine wanted by our airmen. As a result of these overhauls time, money and labour, which might very properly have been used in other directions, are expended.
I will now give an example of bad management on the part of an employer of labour. I was at Colchester on Saturday last. I was told of men who had no work to do being kept in the works. That in itself is not wrong. It may arise as a result of a breakdown and the repairs taking up more time than was anticipated. It may arise through non-delivery of a component part of the product to be constructed, or it may arise through the want of correlation of production between one part and another of the same machine. The bad management arises from the fact that the men are regularly kept in the works and paid overtime for which no work, or practically no work, has been done. There can be only one explanation of that. Either the contract price is so high and this method of payment hides it, or there is some provision for overhead charges which benefits the financial position of the employer. No employer should be allowed to do that. It should be prohibited, and the employer penalised if such methods are adopted.
Mismanagement arises from a number of factors. As has been said by the hon. Member for Stoke, one of the chief factors is the inability of some employers to appreciate the strain endured by men working so many hours. There is an absence of consideration for their comfort, lack of proper feeding arrangements, and a readiness to penalise workers if they are late because of poor transport facilities. Again, no attempt is made to inform the workers why they are standing idle, or why the job which they are supposed to be doing is held back. I will give an instance of that. The workers in a certain factory complained to me that they were marking time when they wanted to be busy. I felt sure the factory was not responsible, and on inquiry I found that enemy action had temporarily placed another factory out of production, with the result that a certain component part was not obtainable. I suggest that it would be a good thing if a representative of the workers, trusted by employers and workers alike, was told, without giving away detailed

information, why work had been held up. That would remove the causes of complaint and the feelings of anger against the employer, who for some reason or other was thought to be holding up production. I pass the suggestion on, because work in our factories must not be lessened as a result of withholding information which would explain to the workers why certain things take place.
I now turn to the other side. The main complaint against workpeople is absenteeism and short time. In peacetime you can analyse the causes, but in war-time that is impossible. In industrial areas air raids are responsible, and longer travelling distances and inadequate transport facilities contribute to the problem. The employment of husbands and wives and other domestic adjustments, as well as fatigue, and short periods of physical and mental indisposition, are other factors. The strain is too great for many of the workers, not so much because of the hours worked, but because of the infrequent and ill-arranged periods of prolonged rest. Many hours of work with intensified application can be worked, providing there are regular periods of 24 hours or 315 hours' rest. I speak from personal knowledge and observation in the workshops. There is another cause of absenteeism due to the fact that if a man is a little late he is kept out of the factory, and he is unlikely to present himself until the next meal hour, or perhaps not at all that day. I do not know what general arrangements are now made under the changed working conditions for dealing with accidental and unintentional lateness for work. In some factories it means a loss of a morning. I was more fortunate in my place of work, and I believe the loss of working hours was lessened thereby. If I was not in at 6 in the morning, I lost a quarter of an hour. If I was not in until 6.15, I lost half-an-hour. If I was not in until 6.30, I lost an hour. That loss was not sufficiently large in its penalty to keep me from going to work at 7 o'clock in the morning. Ca'canny, or taking it easy, is certainly much more reprehensible in war-time than at any other time. The lives of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and of our women and children depend on the increased production of those on war work.
My own opinion is that it is the duty of those who work to supply those who fight with the essential machinery of warfare for their safety and our security, for their victory and our reward in helping to bring a righteous peace to a war-stricken world. I have no doubt—that is why I say I try to look at these things from the point of view of the person I am attacking-— that political considerations are responsible for some of the workshop difficulties during the past year. It appears, now that Russia has been forced into the war, that some of these difficulties will be removed, but for myself I cannot see that the urgency of concentrated activity in the factories is greater now than it has ever been since the war started. The unparalleled danger recently discovered by some of our Communist friends has always been with us, and they did not help very much to counter it. We are told that every minute counts now. We must go on increasing our production and must throw all our weight into the fight, so that we shall batter hell out of Hitler and Fascism. I hope that, with unity of industrial purpose, the Minister of Labour will have fewer lost days to report and our production departments greater and speedier supplies of war material.
I am of opinion that production can be hindered or increased by faulty or wise direction, but I am also of opinion that it can be neutralised by publicity in certain directions. We should not warn the enemy of his danger. If the enemy knows that you are producing an instrument which will effectively deal with his offensive weapons, he will transfer them for more intensive use to some more vulnerable area. Is that wise from the point of view of production? I have read in the papers about the special features of a predictor, and I daresay I could get further information from the technical journals. Is that wise from the point of view of production? Our enemies are not ignorant. They get to know. They can put these things together. This is an example. The fact that it exists warns the enemy and sets him to making a similar and better instrument, with the result that the effectiveness of our production is decreased, whereas if we destroy a hundred aeroplanes by an unknown weapon, we in fact increase our superiority to that extent. Also by doing so we save time,

labour and materials for other things. I trust that information thus given away to satisfy useless home curiosity will be checked in relation to these instruments of war. I trust that employers guilty of mismanagement and of, shall I say, careless manufacturing, of which I have heard cases, will be penalised. I trust that the workman who does not accept the arrangements laid down by the trade unions for settling labour difficulties will be told to toe the line laid down for his guidance. Let the responsible organisations do the work. If he is not willing to do it, I agree with the hon. Member opposite that he should have to choose between that and being immediately asked to join one of the Fighting Services. We have to win this war on production as well as other things in the interest of production and the well-being of our workers.

Sir Richard Acland: The Parliamentary Secretary, in summing up yesterday, told us he would very much like definite information about things that are going wrong. Obviously the information that we have is second-hand, and, if it is to be of any use, we have to produce our original sources. Can the Minister give and implement an undertaking that when we bring evidence of anything that is going wrong, even if that evidence when sifted appears capable of carrying an interpretation other than that which we supposed, neither the witnesses nor the firms they represent shall be penalised under the Official Secrets Act or shall be subjected to bludgeoning by the major financial interests in the industry in which they are engaged, against whom they will usually have been testifying? Can the Minister with his lips give and in practice implement that guarantee, because if it can be given, there are hon. Members who have shoals of cases to give him of things that are utterly wrong about which they know?
It is no use my saying to him that I am told of this, that or the other fact, such as that one of his controllers has resolutely killed and stifled any project for increasing the output of something or other, because an incidental effect of that proposal would be to leave at the end of the war productive capacity outside the control of the controller and his gang. It is no use my giving such a case because somebody will get up and say, "Who is it?" If I then go to my friend and say,


"I told them in the House what you told me; can I tell them that it was you who told me?" He will say, "No, you cannot, because I shall be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, even if my evidence is accepted to the extent perhaps that some underling of this gang gets a rapping over the knuckles. I do not mind about getting the sack myself, but I am thinking of my managing director who has helped me throughout my life and who will be let down because he will have no more contracts and will have obstacles put in his way." Are the Government strong enough to give and to implement a guarantee that if people come forward with evidence, the witnesses and the firms they represent will be safeguarded and will not be prejudiced? If so, there is not an hon. Member who cannot tell the Government of things that are going wrong. In 50 per cent, of the cases there may be an explanation, but in the other 50 per cent, the complaints will be worth looking into. I ask for that guarantee to be given in the speech that concludes this Debate. If it is not, it is no use asking Members to give specific instances.
I want to make one comment on the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), with every word of which I agree, so far as it went. He talked a lot about equality. Would it not be a splendid thing if somebody from trial side mentioned the case of the tax-free director who is getting £2,000, £3,000, £10,000, and even £25,000 a year? It is pathetic to argue in terms of shillings and sixpences about inequalities between one grade and another and one factory and another, when all the time there is this monstrous inequality of which everybody on that side of the House seems to be utterly unaware. It would mean an enormous increase in the morale of the country if action were taken to provide that no company director should receive more money for the duration of the war than a field-marshal. I ask any Member on the other side of the House to get up and say that in his opinion there is not any company director who deserves to receive more than General Wavell. If anybody says that a company director does deserve more, let me hear it, but if nobody says that, I trust that back benchers on the other side will put their names to a resolution that all company

directors' salaries should be reduced to that of a major-general.
This is but one small part of a single phenomenon. You cannot organise for maximum war production through channels which are inevitably compelled to have more than half their attention fixed on the question, "What will be the position of my firm when the war is over?" I submit that to the Government and to every hon. Member as absolutely fundamental. I read a letter in the "Daily Telegraph" a little while ago from the managing director of a firm producing munitions. He said:
My quarrel is not with the courteous Government Departments, but with the whole national policy which still seeks to reach maxi- ' mum production of war supplies without seriously interfering with the competitive, individual and profit-making basis of our industrial system.
I have been saying this kind of thing in the House almost since the outbreak of the war. Nobody has ever answered it and no Minister in replying to a Debate has ever commented upon it. With their heads buried in the sand every Member is treating the problem as if it does not exist. I say that it does exist and that it is widely felt to exist among the common people. The sooner we make up our minds to the fact that we must interfere with this old economic system of ours before we can get through the war or have any chance of reconstructing ourselves in the peace, the better it will be. The letter goes on to say:
 My firm desires only to produce and to keep on producing, but we are daily forced to do things which are contrary to the public interest and to omit doing things which would be in the public interest, because the system imposes upon us as a first consideration the need for making our own living and ensuring our future.
That is the fundamental problem at the basis of all our difficulties. May I give a few of the things which result from the fact that the actual managers who are responsible for running firms are themselves either shareholders or responsible to shareholders who have their eyes inevitably fixed on their own position after the war? You cannot get the machine-tool industry to take women into their factories in many cases because the firms know that if at the end of the war they are staffed largely with women, the women will go and they will be left without staffs.


So, in the interests of their future, they sacrifice our present. You cannot get firms to pool their secrets. The Ministry of Supply has not compelled and in many cases has not asked firms to pool their secrets because the firms want to keep the one thing which may be of some value to them in the future exclusively to themselves. When firms through circumstances beyond their control have no work to do for a fortnight or three weeks, they will not send their skilled men to work for other firms because they ask, "What will happen to us if we lose our skilled men?"— once again looking upon themselves as a little unit, as they must in this economic system, instead of looking on the national effort. You cannot persuade factory A to concentrate on product A, factory B on product B, and so on. You are compelled even now, 23 months after the war, to have factories A, B, C and D making product A, B, C and D. These firms resist your efforts at concentration of production, because they say, "If we fall in with this suggestion of yours what will our position be after the war, when we have got out of the habit of making B, C, D, E, F and G after two years of concentrating on A?"
Lastly, some, but not all, of the controllers, drawn almost always from the biggest firms, arc deliberately stifling proposals which would increase national output because those same proposals would result, after the war, in there being competitive productive capacity outside the control of the powerful organisation from which the Government controller was drawn and to which he intends to return. I have often expressed the view that without a complete revolution of our way of life we shall succeed neither in production for war nor in reconstruction for peace; but leaving that point of view aside now, I do say that we shall not straighten out this production tangle until we buy out the whole engineering industry. I leave it to the Government to try and explain how, short of that, they can organise national production. They cannot do it through the medium of people who are bound to look first and foremost upon their own firms as individual units, and only secondly at the national effort as a whole.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I want to start on rather an explanatory note, because so often when

a Scottish Member intervenes in such a Debate and refers, as is only natural, to events in Scotland, he is looked upon either as a rabid Scottish Nationalist or as one coming from a foreign country who is disgusted with English methods of working. Therefore, I want to make it clear that my only object in speaking to-day is to draw attention to some of the glaring examples of waste which are occurring in the Scottish heavy industries through a lack of Government planning and proper direction. I would strengthen the plea made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) that when evidence is submitted to the Ministers at the head of Departments those submitting that evidence should be assured that there will be no victimisation, because it has been my experience that when certain firms in Scotland made representations to Departments with regard to contracts they afterwards found themselves suffering from a spate of complaints from those Departments such as had never been made to them before. To corroborate my statement I will give one or two instances of our difficulties in Scotland, at the same time reminding hon. Members that in my maiden speech in Parliament in 1935 I expressed the hope that whatever any hon. Member said here, no matter for what party he spoke, would result in decisions and legislation that would be representative of the thoughts of the majority of Members. 1 take that attitude to-day, and trust that it will be understood that when I refer to Scottish organisations and Scottish industries I am referring to them in connection with the past they are playing in war production for the defence of the Empire.
I have been very busy dealing with the question of contracts given to organisations in the North, and I feel that it is time that the Government or the Treasury, or whichever Minister is responsible, got down to the question of setting up a central organisation for the allocation of contracts for important war production In connection with the erection of ordnance factories in Scotland, certain representations have been made by reputable civil engineering and building contractors, some of them firms more than a century old, who have always in the past carried out their contracts within scheduled time and always worked to the


satisfaction of the various Departments. Since the war started an organisation has grown up called Wimpeys Limited, who are undertaking roughly £ 40,000,000 worth of work in this country. I consider that my figure of £ 40,000,000 is a moderate figure. When I raised the question previously the late Prime Minister stated that he could not agree that the figure was £65,000,000 but he did not say whether it was £66,000,000 or £ 63,000,000. My information is that this firm of Wimpeys Limited have undertaken roughly about £40,000,000 worth of contracts on behalf of the Government. As an ordinary man, with ordinary common sense, I say that at a time when we want to speed up the war effort there is no one organisation in this country which can undertake. £ 40,000,000 worth of Government work and do the work speedily and efficiently.
Firms in Scotland have protested against this position. One firm who had worked at Rosyth Dockyard in their day and done a good job complained that they had had no opportunity to tender for certain work. They are a firm with an efficient organisation, with a weekly pay roll of £ 5,000, and with all the plant and machinery necessary to do good work for the Government. After they had protested against this other firm receiving contracts they encountered a spate of complaints from the Departments concerned about the work they had done in the past. They were a firm who had never had a complaint raised against them before, had never had one criticism of their work before, who had done work for the Admiralty and been complimented upon it; but as soon as they raised an objection to Wimpeys receiving contracts without competition complaints came in from Government Departments, and they had to send for Colonel Arthur, from Edinburgh, and a Mr. Reid, of a firm of architects of world-wide repute, to go over their work, draw up an independent report and submit it to the Government Department in order to make them retract their implications against their workmanship.
I have the papers here about another firm in Glasgow, Jackson Brown and Company, which firm is 100 years old. This firm has undertaken important work. Jackson Brown and Company built St.

Andrews House, the Scottish Government buildings, without complaint. They built Lewis's Polytechnic without complaint, and they have been retained by the great organisation for future work. They have undertaken work at another ordnance factory, to the extent of £ 500,000 or more. Since they stood up against the other firm and said that they would not collaborate as sub-contractors with that firm, because they had all the building materials and their own organisation in Scotland, they have been blackmarked, and, for more than a year, £ 40,000 worth of their plant has been lying idle. They have been hiring about £30,000 worth of plant out to third-party firms who have come hundreds of miles to do Government work for which they have no organisation, although the work was practically upon Jackson Brown's doorstep.
This reminds me of Tammany Hall politics, and I say frankly— I do not intend to mince my words— that there must be some sinister influence at work when reputable firms can be smashed although they are controlled by business men of undoubted loyalty to this country and have carried on for more than a century with out any complaint. To-day these people are refused even the opportunity of tendering, while another firm can go to the North or South of Scotland, the North or South of England or to South Wales, and can be given millions of pounds' worth of Government work to do. I want to know who is the bigger in the woodpile. Who is backing the other organisation? The chairman of the organisation which is carrying out £ 40,000,000 worth of work for the Government has recently been appointed by the Minister of Works and Buildings to be controller of building materials in this country. I am making a straightforward statement and—

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he is now introducing matter which concerns the Ministry of Works and Buildings, which does not come under this Vote.

Mr. Davidson: I am referring to the appointment of an individual, whose firm is engaged in building ordnance factories for aircraft production and for general war production all over the country. I was endeavouring to make it clear that this man, who is the head of the organisation


concerned, has now been appointed to a responsible position.

The Deputy-Chairman: Even so, that is a Ministry of Works and Buildings matter.

Mr. Davidson: I bow to your Ruling. I agree that it must be so, but indirectly it is related to the subject that is before us. I would point out very respectfully to you that this —

It being the hour appointed for the Consideration of opposed Private Business, and there being Private Business set down, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order).

Second Reading deferred until the 3rd Sitting Day after 13th July.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Postponed proceeding on Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply, including expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Davidson: As I was explaining when the proceedings were interrupted, I would like to ask what influence and what qualifications arc possessed by the individual to whom I was referring. It is my definite information that the organisation to which he belongs has been barred by the Hendon local council from doing any work for the council and that the organisation has also been the subject of serious investigation by a sub-committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. I would like to give one or two instances in order to strengthen my case that greater consideration should be given to important war-production contracts.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): Is the gentleman referred to a Scotsman?

Mr. Davidson: No, Sir. That was a rather frivolous interjection. I am here as a British representative in the House of Commons, but I would say that the gentleman is not a Scotsman, not a Welshman, not an Englishman, and not an Irishman. The imagination of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is fertile, and he will no doubt understand the place to which this individual belongs. I am trying to obtain consideration of this matter, and I feel it my duty to make these things clear. The firm of Jackson, Brown and Company, who have not received a contract for over a year, are on Air Ministry work of national importance, hiring plant, worth thousands of pounds, through third parties who must make a profit and have their rake-off. What is worse, the firm are retaining indefinitely, in their yard, diggers, scrapers, and plant of that description at a cost of £ 25 per week. They have retained it for some future contract of which they have been assured from the Government.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production is present, let me give a number of instances. In a certain area in Scotland, the extension of certain works for aircraft production was decided upon. I have raised this matter once before, and to repeat it now will do no harm. None of the Scottish firms knew about this work, but one firm with its ear to the ground heard that two men were travelling from London to the Central Station Hotel, Glasgow, with power to place the contract. The contract was divided into two parts, one part for certain little ovens and the other for a general building contract for £ 185,000, a total of about £ 220,000. Members of this Scottish firm waited at the Central Station Hotel to meet the representatives. They met one man on the train at night, who said he was empowered to place only one part of his contract. I want hon. Members and the Minister to note that this was during the time when we were in very serious difficulties with regard to aircraft production, when our boys in the air were fighting at very great odds and the House of Commons were determined that every step should be taken to secure an efficient production.
This man travelled from London, and at the Central Station Hotel told this Scottish firm that he could place only one part—the smallest part— of the contract, but that another man was coining the


following day to whom they could talk about the other part. So they waited for the second man, and when he arrived he said that the other part of the contract had been given out already, and they would not receive even the small part already promised. This part of the con-tract was handed to Paulines, an organisation which has never undertaken this type of work before. It had concentrated on the building of railways and had never had any connection with this type of work. Paulines had to go to the other firms which had been waiting on the doorstep for something to do and say to them, "For goodness' sake, lend us your plant; we will pay you any hiring fee you like, but let us have your plant so that we can get on with the job." They had no organisation, no labour and no plant, yet they received the contract over the heads of three Scottish organisations which were three miles from the site. That is waste and extravagance, and is not speedy production. I can prove to any independent-minded committee that seven important days were lost before the firm could start on that contract; seven important days were lost in scraping up plant from the Scottish contractors who were doing nothing themselves. That sort of thing has got to be stopped.
I have been taking this question up for many years, and I have been appealed to by many organisations to bring them before some representative. We organised a meeting of the National Sub-Committee at which six Scottish contractors were present, all of them men of undoubted loyalty, men who stated that so far as profits were concerned they did not want to make any exceptional profit at all; they wanted to keep their organisations intact by undertaking important Government work so that at the end of the war their organisations would be ready and -equipped to undertake the great work of reconstruction which will have to be carried out afterwards. I could cite case after case. There was one firm— not a big one— who had built married quarters for the police at a big ordnance factory. They did it efficiently and well, and were asked to carry on and erect the buildings for the single police. One week later the firm of Wimpeys, who are already undertaking millions of pounds' worth of work elsewhere, stepped in and got this

small job from the small contractor, who has since crashed owing to lack of orders. Another firm, Craigs, of Glasgow, appealed for me to do something for them. They had undertaken work for the Government, they could not get their payments, and the bank was coming down on them heavily. They have gone smash. They had been built up by one man into a sound and safe organisation for the efficient war production that this country so badly needs. Strangely enough, I have had employers in these industries coming to me and saying, "This is enough to make me into a Scottish Nationalist, when we are treated this way." They have to come down here, go to the various Ministries, appeal, beg and almost get down on their knees for some work in order to keep their organisation and their men intact. I can cite 20 cases of the same character, of the most unnecessary passing-over of these firms which are capable and efficient.
My last question is this: Why is it that, when these firms which are willing to do their part for the country can make no headway in the Government Departments, the firm of Sunleys, which went bankrupt not so very long ago, was immediately flooded with contracts when it was reformed as the Landing Grounds Corporation? This firm had gone bankrupt and had let the Ministry and the Government down because they could not fulfil their contracts. Yet when they re-formed they received contracts over the heads of these Scottish firms which have never been in trouble in their lives before. This is the sort of thing that requires investigation. I make bold to say that there must be some influences at work— there must be something very funny— that allows this sort of thing to go on, and I do hope that my representations here today will at least bring about the consideration of the whole question of the allocation of important war contracts so far as Scotland is concerned. There is one other point I would like to raise, and that is with regard to the question of labour.

The Deputy-Chairman: I ruled out labour questions yesterday. They arise on the Ministry of Labour Vote, and not on this Vote.

Mr. Davidson: Of course there is a difficulty; I was about to refer to labour being taken from one place to another for aircraft production.

The Deputy-Chairman: The question of the transfer of labour does not arise on this occasion.

Mr. Davidson: I accept your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, though I feel, as others have felt, that the restriction of this Debate has placed serious liabilities on some Members who wished to put their point of view before the Government. However, I will conclude by saying that I will raise this question at the appropriate time because aircraft production is most necessary. It is necessary even now that" everything should be done to speed up aircraft production, and if there are any points at which aircraft production is being impeded, I should have thought it would have been in Order to mention them to-day. I will simply say, however, that I will raise, on another occasion this question of women being transferred from Glasgow to places from which other women, are being sent to Glasgow.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: An opportunity now presents itself for one who does not usually take part in discussions concerning Supply to make a few general remarks on the situation as it strikes him. In this somewhat thin and, if I may say so, unexcited Committee, one sees an indication that things are not nearly as serious as some of the critics would have us believe. I cannot help feeling that we have been discussing to-day, and yesterday, one aspect of the conduct of the war, part of a vast picture of the national effort, which has to its credit many great achievements and to its discredit many mistakes, many setbacks and many defeats. I say that the picture, looked at as a whole, and combined with the work of the fighting Forces, is really something to be greatly admired. It would never do— and I least of all would advocate it— that criticism should be stifled. That is something to which I should never agree. I do not want, however, to embark upon what is, in many respects, the fascinating, intoxicating and facile pastime of criticism, but just to say a few words about war factories, as I know them, in a very small way, and compare them with other factories about which I know rather more.

These war factories have suffered from colossal difficulties and I hope that I shall be forgiven, or rather understood, if I say that their establishment is comparable with the creation of an Army and an Air Force. It is an enormously difficult task. What must we, as a nation, bring to the solution of that great task? These war facories are and have been very widely assailed with the bitterest criticism, and all sorts of crimes have been imputed to the managements and workers. I do suggest, greatly daring, that what is wanted in much greater measure is sympathy, some help, and some understanding, rather than criticisms of which we had, to my mind, a very unpleasant example yesterday from the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). It serves no purpose, and is no help of any kind whatever to our war effort.
What happens in the case of these war factories? A great bare site is taken, a vast factory is built upon it. Management and workers are then required, and there are no managements or workers ready to hand. They have to be found from somewhere. Ultimately you get them, and you find inexperienced managers, inexperienced foremen, inexperienced charge hands and a vast body of trainees, both men and women. There is no opportunity whatever of giving these people an opportunity of being trained quietly and slowly. What happens is that you get this vast amorphous crew, so to speak, in a factory, and hope that it is going to work. Is there cause for wonder that from time to time you have the greatest possible difficulty? As far as these trainees are concerned—not to speak for the moment about charge hands and others of whom I have considerable knowledge—they have no past history connected with the industry, in which they may be taking part. They have a feeling, not unnaturally, that they are not there for all time; they do not care particularly. With the exception of a brilliant percentage you find that many of them are not at all easy people to persuade in method.-; of production. They have behind them no tradition of pride and loyalty and many other things that are acquired in the ordinary peace-time factory. There is no particular good name attached to a vast war-time factory. I ask that the public, at any rate—not the House of Commons because the House of Commons already knows it—shall be made to realise what


the difficulties are. That leads me to say that the Press have been, in many respects extremely unhelpful in this respect.
There is only one criticism in anything I have to say and it perhaps is due to my history as a member of a disciplined service for many years. I know that, however good the management, however good the workers in your factory, from time to time you will certainly get some men who have been, perhaps, discharged from several other factories, and who are rather difficult by nature. They are not necessarily difficult by intention, but wherever they go, in some queer way, trouble arises. I am told there are such individuals at the present time, and that they are known as "men working their passage." My criticism is that, with regard to these individuals, who are really not helping, but are doing their best for various reasons to keep back the progress of wartime factories, whoever is responsible, whether it be the Home Secretary or the Minister of Labour, should use his powers to prosecute them.

Mr. Mainwaring: On a point of Order. Is not this a question regarding the Ministry of Labour?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is quite in Order. He is discussing conditions inside the factories.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I am referring to the discipline in the war factories— the factories under the Ministries of Aircraft Production and Supply. I was going to say that I would willingly and happily extend the principle and bring pressure to bear on incompetent management, just as strongly as I would upon the incompetent and troublesome worker. I cannot imagine anybody, to whatever party he may belong, who could really cavil at that proposition. There is no comparison between the difficulties of the war factories and the difficulties of the peace factories. Even if one goes to them nowadays one finds that peace-time factories have an atmosphere of order and, as I said just now, pride, tradition and loyalty. So I would say in these very general remarks, which are largely intended for the Press, that these attacks on the war effort, whether they may be on the fighting Services, or the producing

Services of the national effort, are too often unfair and are very often based on very poor evidence indeed. These factories have been created at record speed, and record effort has been expended to make them the remarkable organisations that they are; and I think we should be more grateful than we are. The managers, the foremen, the workers, have all, without exception, incomparably greater tasks and responsibilities than were borne by those engaged in peace-time factories. Members may have noticed in the Press on 4th July an accusation in connection with the making and selling of model aeroplanes. The "Daily Mail" suggested that these aeroplanes, made of brass and chromium-plated, had in fact been made in war factories in what is called "idle time." They were being sold in public houses and elsewhere. I wrote to someone on the spot, and he made an inquiry. I can say that there is no foundation whatever for that accusation against the war factories. In fact, these very simple and crude brass castings were made by a small tradesman, and had nothing to do with any war factory. That they should have been made of brass was perhaps wrong. Brass should not be used in war-time for making model aeroplanes. It should be used for making cartridge cases and other things of that sort. I mention this only because I do not see why any organ of the Press should get away with stories of that kind, even if the individual who writes them and thinks he has done something clever, belongs to that odd class described as "licensed observers at the peep-show of human misery." I think it is extremely unfortunate that some sections of the Press should persist in these attacks on our war factories.

Mr. Stokes: A short time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. J. J. Davidson) gave a very interesting example of something which, if it is true—and I have no reason to believe that it is not—needs very careful investigation. I am not in a position to support what he has said specifically on that case, but I would suggest to the Ministers concerned that the subject-matter of his remarks call for very serious attention. The position, as I understand it, is that if you buy new plant and use it on a job you may not write it off against a contract, but that if you hire plant from an-


other contractor at a high price that counts as a prime cost item, and is allowed in the cost of the whole work. I can give as many examples as the Minister cares to ask for to show that that practice is very prevalent.
I had not the opportunity of hearing the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne). He and the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) have both spoken on this vexed, and, in my opinion, much exaggerated, question of absenteeism. The hon. Member for Kidderminster to-day took the view, as I do, that absenteeism itself is not nearly as bad as it is sometimes made out to be. I would like to point out to hon. Members who are not familiar with heavy engineering, at any rate, that absenteeism is not always the men's fault. The first cause is too-long working hours. I should like to hear the Minister say that he is going to throw his weight on the side of abolishing Sunday work altogether. It is wrong to expect men to work seven days a week. It is a fact that when factories have been running seven days a week over a long period men naturally stand off, and if I were in their place I should certainly not choose as a day off the day for which I got most pay. It would be to the advantage of all if Sunday work were abolished, except for essential repairs and production jobs of exceptionally great urgency, and, of course, where it is necessary to keep a two-shift or a three-shift system running. I would like to pay this tribute to the people with whom I work. When this complaint was made, I had a careful check taken of the percentages of absenteeism. In one of the factories with which I am connected absenteeism is below one per cent.—and it is going to be a great deal lower, with the co-operation of all concerned. That is as low as we can expect to get.
In what I thought to be an admirable maiden speech yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Lieutenant Brabner) made a most astonishing statement. May I say that it is refreshing to have somebody who has done some fighting in this war come back and talk about fighting? He referred to the experiences he had had with tanks in Greece. He said that So per cent, of the tanks did not reach the enemy, because they had broken down. Was that for lack of spare parts

or for lack of adequate travelling repair depots about which complaint was made after Dunkirk? That brings to my mind a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) at Question Time yesterday. When returns of production are asked for, perhaps enough emphasis is not laid upon the importance of having adequate spares to support every machine in the field. The fault, I am sure, lies at the door of the Cabinet, who like to see large figures of production of machines, and are not vitally concerned as to whether the spare parts are there. The tendency is to get the machines away, regardless of whether there are adequate spares and service behind them.
I should like to make one or two observations which I think should be helpful to both management and men on this vital production issue. I want to deal with time-saving, labour-saving, and efficiency generally. I wonder, are the Ministers satisfied that sufficient and adequate immediate-cover shelters are available for all the men in the factories? We are bound to be troubled by air raids. The men are told to get on with the job, and to disregard aeroplanes overhead, to realise that they are in the front line. As I have said before, in many ways the man in the production shop is in a worse position than the man in the front line, who spends all his time looking for the enemy, and has nothing else to do. You excite the man in the factory by blowing as many sirens as possible, and then you tell him to take no notice, and not to let production down. In my experience, there is no reason whatever why adequate blast-proof shelter should not be provided for all the men in a shop, within 15 seconds of their places of work. I am not satisfied that that is being done. If it is not done, it will inevitably lead to a colossal waste of time, because you cannot expect men to stay at their jobs unless they have a really properly constructed funkhole next door into which they can get at a moment's notice, more especially if you continue the present ridiculous scheme of sirens screaming.
Cannot some arrangement be made for the centralisation of inspection? The present method leads to a colossal waste of time and money. I will give my own example. In the course of five months, roughly speaking, about 130 working


days, we had no visits from 25 different inspectors, many of whom came down in motor cars and the rest of it, representing a colossal waste of time and money. Surely, it should be possible to have one man resident at a factory to do all the inspection of certain classes of work for all adjustments. The present system causes trouble in the shops, which are sometimes inundated with inspectors, and it would be for the great advantage of Government Departments if there were resident inspectors who could watch the business all along the line.
The machine is getting practically clogged up with paper. Cannot something be done to cut out some of these returns? I believe that people have forgotten some of the returns that have been made. It seems to me that this sort of thing happens in a Government Department. A form of return is adopted, and then after a time someone thinks of a better one, but he forgets to stop the first one, and so you go on. One firm with which I am connected has to fill in 46 different forms, between 50 and 60 of these weekly, and has sent in something like 3,000 returns every year. I am sure they are not looked at. In many instances I have tried the game of catching out the Department by faking returns, and I have got away with it on all occasions except one. I shall be pleased to place this file which I hold in my hand at the disposal of any Member of this Committee for examination. It shows the amount of duplication involved in some of these plans. There is too much paperhanging and interference with the factory instead of getting on with the business.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Is that aircraft production?

Mr. Stokes: It is very much more Ministry of Supply, and particularly the iron and steel trade, who seem to have gone raving mad. We have at last got some sensible scheme in regard to costing, in that now the Departments are prepared to accept auditors' certificates in some cases. I want to put a ridiculous example with regard to fixing the rate of charges, and again I quote a case from practical experience. Two fully fledged accountants were sent down to a factory of my acquaintance and spent two days and a half, with the whole of the ac-

countancy department of the factory at their service, striving to arrive at a fair figure on which a charge was to be established during the ensuing 12 months. The firm's auditors had gone into the figures and had arrived" at the total of £ 283,693 as the overhead figure for the year. After a two days' struggle with the visiting officials and, with the whole of the accounts department held up by everybody fussing here and there, the total was reduced to £283,116. I ask that the same policy should be adopted with regard to the fixing of overhead charges as has been adopted, in some instances, by the Ministry of Supply for costing, to accept not absolutely but in the main the auditor's certificate from the firm, the department reserving the right to inspect at any time if they think that any irregularity is taking place.
There is a final point on this particular side of the business, and that is the delays which take place in decisions by Government Departments. We have heard to-day one or two hon. Members speak about the importance of canteens, and we on this side of the Committee particularly appreciate that point. I have had a case— this again is first-hand evidence— where it was decided on 12th October, 1040, owing to the difficult feeding conditions and so on, that a new canteen should be built, and the Ministry of Supply was advised accordingly. After a good deal of bickering as to what was to be done, eventually, on 28th February, four months later, the Ministry of Labour wrote a very stern letter— it was very kind and all the rest of it, but allowed of no doubts as to what he intended or wanted— asking that the work should be proceeded with. The firm had got tired of waiting and went on with the job, but the big joke is that the whole matter had to be referred to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, and the permit to proceed with the work was only received on 2nd July. The work was half completed, so it did not really matter whether they got the permit or not, but, surely, something can be done to cut out a lot of this red tape and over-centralisation which seems to be going on in all Government Departments.
I now turn to a much more major point — the problem of efficiency in the filling of factories. When the Ministry of Supply was started we had an "engineer-vice-


admiral scheme." We prophesied that it would not work, and it did not. That was modified by a kind of bastard regional control which, in many instances, has not worked at all. Yesterday we learned that there is to be another glorious committee to advise somebody about something. I do not know who they are so that it is difficult to criticise. I am told that they are to be nearly all officials and not engineers. That is what one expects from a Government with no engineers in it. You cannot organise this sort of thing absolutely from the top. A great deal has to be done from the bottom if you are to get 100 per cent, efficiency. I visualise it in this way: In peace-time factories as a whole are engaged in a form of planned production, and they engage an army of salesmen to go round and sell what they produce. The position has now changed around, and the factories have to sell their vacant machine hours and space to the Government. They must have some quick and flexible arrangements whereby gaps in production and idle machines will be speedily taken up by local and regional collaborators from time to time at short notice. We do not want any officials, but authority to get on with the work.
The method adopted now is so slow that the situation has completely changed by the time the person at the top reads the return. I had a first-class example of that when we were engaged on work of priority IA work. It was decided that production should be doubled or trebled, and we were asked to place all our drawings at the disposal of another firm to come and do the same job. After about a month's lapse, perhaps longer, I received an urgent telegram asking me to contact a certain firm who were carrying out other work but who would take this job on immediately. I took the night train to Scotland, got off at the appropriate station, rang up the managing director and said, "I understand you want to make these things," to which he replied, "That was three months ago. I am full up with other work now "That sort of thing is hopeless. Men do not like standing about in factories waiting for jobs, and you will never get maximum production and the machine tools you require until you organise locally so that we can get together on the spot without any interference from above and get the problem of

idle man-hours solved by agreement with all concerned.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Most of the 12 regions are sub-divided into local areas in which manufacturers are interchanging information about turnover and are rapidly being put into communication with those who can take it from them. We have been meeting with increasing success with this organisation, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will try to make it better known that this is so.

Mr. Stokes: I have no shadow of doubt that an organisation exists on paper, but it does not work.

Mr. Macmillan: It does, and I can give the hon. Gentleman actual figures of the detailed contracts which have been passed on by this organisation.

Mr. Stokes: I am not the slightest bit interested in values or returns which the Ministry gets. All I am interested in is the fact that in my district there are idle machines and idle men who do not want to be idle, all because there is not sufficient local collaboration to put the thing right. You cannot organise it from as far away as Cambridge. Why put the Production Committee at a professorial institution? It is not an engineering institution. If you want to put it anywhere, it ought to be at Ipswich, and in saying this I do not expect them to vote for me, because there will not be an election in the time. If the Parliamentary Secretary can prove that I am wrong, I shall have to resign my position, because I shall have to admit that I am not capable of running my own business or knowing what is going on inside it.
There is another serious matter, the importance of which I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Aircraft Production realises. It is that we are running our machinery and plant to death and that we have nothing whatever wherewith to put it right. It is no use saying that by easing-up on maintenance you are helping the war effort. Paying for the war effort is "bolony" anyway. Surely, if you are to allow factories to run down— because that is what you are doing— it will not only slow up war production, but when that produc-


tion comes to an end there will be nothing but a set of wrecks left, and we shall not be able to face the peace issue on any level keel. I know that this is not a matter for debate to-day, but I do ask that both the Ministers concerned should realise that this is an important fact and make strong representations to the Treasury to get their dead hand removed. I suggest that some proportion of the 20 per cent, remission of excess profits should be allowed now, so that firms could keep their machines up to date and efficient. Then there is the question of machine tools. The whole issue is a matter of efficiently equating man-power with machine tools. I want to ask a few questions, because there seems to be a block. I had some important priority IA work given me in April, and the Government was given to understand that it could not be carried out in the period required unless certain machine tools were supplied to increase the output. The supply of those tools was undertaken to be completed within the period of a few weeks. At any rate it was made clear that output could increase only after these tools had been used for a certain period. We are now in the middle of July and they have not come yet.
I want to ask one or two questions about this machine-tool control. Has there been sufficient standardisation of production through each firm in this country? I do not know machine-tool makers sufficiently well myself to know whether this is so, but I am sure there is not. Are patent rights and royalty owners of new designs in any way proving to be a hindrance to standardisation, and, if so, would the Minister exercise the powers which he has to speed these out of the way? Has home production of tools been increased sufficiently? I get the inevitable reaction when I talk the matter over with the Ministry that this subject has been swept across to the other side of the Atlantic. They think it is sufficient to get everything from America. One of our great blocks is that we have not enough horizontal boring machines. A well-known firm of makers in this country stated at the beginning of 1940 that they could increase production by 33 per cent, within six months—that was by the end of June last year—if an expenditure of £68,000 for the improvement of facilities was granted to them by the

Government. Nothing was done. Instead of that, 40 large borers, which cost about £ 5,000 each, were ordered from America. So far as I am aware, only a dozen have been delivered up to now. Had the original scheme gone ahead with that local firm, we should have had that production already, on this side of the Atlantic instead of the other. Who is responsible for decisions of that kind?
I addressed a Question the other day to the Ministry of Supply on the subject of American tools. I am the first to express every form of gratitude to our American friends for what they have done to help us, but I believe that the second-hand tool trade in America is probably no better than the second-hand tool trade in this country. What do we find? We find the Ministry admitting this, that while the Commission making the purchases of these tools takes great care to examine new tools before they are shipped, nothing is done to examine the second-hand tools.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Nothing of the kind. I said that for the purpose of getting more tools there was a certain amount of inferior material which was taken as part of a large order. It was of about 10 per cent., and that took place 21 months ago.

Mr. Stokes: That is just what I wanted the hon. Gentleman to say. In a consignment of £ 3,000,000 worth of second-hand tools 95 per cent, were absolute junk and had to be scrapped.

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman would put the figures the other way round, he might be about right.

Mr. Stokes: Well, I have this on pretty good authority, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will undertake to look into it. If it is the case, then I say it is an absolute disgrace and an absolute villainy committed on our merchant seamen, who are allowed to waste their time and effort in carrying this stuff across the Atlantic. I am complaining about the utter incompetence of our producing Committee, not the Americans. There is a second question that I want to ask about American tools. We all know the difficulties of landing cargoes in this country and the importance of minimising delays. Why is there no properly organised scheme by which machines are allocated before arrival, so that the


moment they arrive they can go straight from the port to the factory, or be taken away from the port to some decentralised places? The Minister may say that all this has been changed, and I hope it has been, but very recent experience and evidence given to me show that there is no pre-allocation scheme.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The only non-allocated tools arriving from America are what are known as French orders which we took over after the collapse of France. We undertook to purchase machine-tools, together with all the other orders placed by the French Government in America. We were not able to pre-allocate them because they arrived without bills of lading or descriptions of the tools, and each case had to be opened at the port in order to find out what was inside. We were very glad to get them because they were an additional windfall, and, in spite of all the difficulties involved, it was a windfall worth having.

Mr. Stokes: I assure the Minister that I am not talking about French tools.

Mr. Macmillan: In every other case they are pre-allocated.

Mr. Stokes: The Parliamentary Secretary speaks with great confidence, but I also am not without a definite opinion on this matter, and I will gladly submit to him for examination some of the evidence which I have. Lastly, I want to ask why it was that, apparently, the two last "blanket" orders of £ 10,000,000 each for machine-tools from America were placed with a comparatively small number of firms which, from the reports I have had, were not capable of completing delivery until the middle or end of 1942, whereas if those orders had been spread over the machine-tool production of America as a whole, the final delivery would have been advanced by very many months. Again, I will submit the evidence to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Macmillan: These orders were not placed by us with the manufacturers in the United States. We obtained permission from the United States authorities to place two large block orders. The British Purchasing Commission had to place these contracts through the machinery given to it by the American authorities. If we had attempted to do it in any other way, there would have been great diffi-

culties. It was a great piece of goodwill on the part of the American authorities to allow us to place those block orders, and we had to do it entirely by good-will, since every machine was subject to an export licence, and except by the goodwill of the American authorities, the orders could neither have been placed nor the machines exported.

Mr. Stokes: I am glad to have that explanation, but I am afraid I am still not satisfied. The point remains that, in my opinion, it would have been much more advisable to spread over the orders instead of passing them through a group of firms represented by only five agencies on this side. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot possibly contest that. If he does, I will submit the evidence to him in writing. Yesterday, we heard a very interesting and inspiring speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). I endorse everything that he said about the complaints he had received—and which I and no doubt other hon. Members have received—about idle time and inefficiency in some of the factory construction. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee going into details, but I urge that the recommendation made by my hon. Friend should be adopted, and that there should be an all-party, non-Governmental standing group of Members of the House to whom people outside could report on inefficiencies, irregularities, and so on, without fear that they would be victimised. Such a scheme would be of the utmost advantage to everybody.

Sir Percy Harris: May I remind the hon. Member that there is in existence a Select Committee of the House, and that any Member who wished to put a point of that kind could give evidence?

Mr. Stokes: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that any Member could give evidence, but

Sir P. Harris: Or any private business man.

Mr. Stokes: I am afraid that is not known widely enough, and it may be that these remarks will give it some advertisement. However, I doubt whether the humble folk to whom I am referring would care to appear before a Select Committee, whereas I think they would be willing to


come before three or four back bench Members.

Mr. Davidson: While it is true that there is such a Select Committee, I think the right hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) will agree that the Committee has been so heavily engaged in the past that when it came to Glasgow it could, in a very important affair, give only about 15 minutes to each contractor.

Mr. Stokes: To conclude my remarks, I want to refer to the maiden speech made yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Lieutenant Brabner), in which he made a very shrewd and calculated observation when he said:
we in this country have to make up our minds whether we want tanks or aircraft. There is an absolute strategy in this. If we could produce 20,000 aircraft to hit the Germans with, we should win the war. If we had 5,600 tanks and 5,000 aircraft, I do not know whether we should be much better off than we are to-day, except from the point of view of numbers."—-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1941; col. 216; Vol. 373.]
I am in entire sympathy with that statement, and it leads me to put the following question. We are discussing production. Production for what? What is it that we intend to do, and how is it that we shall eventually come out on top? Will it be by making a huge quantity of equipment and then rolling across Europe in armed tanks, and eventually marching into Berlin? Is that the way? I do not think so. I feel that what we ought to concentrate on is the production of ships, and particularly of fighting aircraft. Until the Government make up their mind on that matter, surely they will be in danger of importing from across the Atlantic just the material which we do not want, and using up our shipping for no useful purpose. What we ought to do is to limit our imports to essential things under the main strategy, whatever it may be, and I do not believe it is tanks. Therefore, I urge that the strategy should be denned, recognising that we shall win the war on the water and in the air, and that the whole of our shipping resources should be devoted to that end.

Mr. Clement Davies: One approaches these two Votes on this occasion with considerably less anxiety

than one has felt certainly since 1938, or since the formation of the Ministry of Supply. There are, perhaps, two reasons for this. There has been during the last 12 or 13 months a very considerable improvement. So there should have been. Efforts have been made by all sections of the community to increase production throughout the country, and it would be criminal if we were faced with any other situation and if one had to complain that production, instead of going up, had gone down. But in the main the sense of relief which we all feel is due to the fact that Russia has taken upon herself the tremendous burden of the onslaught which Germany is pouring upon her today. Russia, like this country, is fighting for her very life, and millions of people, who hold their ideals as sincerely as we hold ours, are determined that those ideals shall be upheld against Nazism as strongly as we intend to uphold our liberty.
There is a lesson in this, too. The tremendous battle which is now raging on that long front must have convinced everyone of the stupendous effort that has been made by Germany. Hundreds of planes, thousands of tanks, tens of thousands of gums and millions of men are engaged in a titanic struggle, such as has never before been experienced and hardly contemplated. Up to less than three weeks ago, these planes, tanks, guns and men were ready for use against us alone. We stood alone, the British Empire, facing those tremendous odds. We all realise of course that we lost six precious years before the war started, and some of us at any rate realised that we were frittering away the first eight months of this war in a sort of lethargic meandering. But with a new Government there came renewed hope and fresh energy. Britain was awakened to the danger. With fortitude it faced the collapse of four small countries, the downfall of its greatest Ally, France, and even the evacuations of Dunkirk and of Norway. The people of this country were ready for any sacrifice, and there was a spirit of national unity which was sublime.
Within ten days of the advent of the new Prime Minister, Parliament, without any comment whatsoever, except one of approbation, passed the great Act of 22nd May, 1940. But can anyone pretend that we have made any real use of that Act.


and that the Government have made use of the immense powers which were given to them on that day by Parliament and by the country to mobilise, to plan, to direct all the resources, material and men of this country for the necessary production? Even for production, there has been little interference, so far, with profit — a restriction here, and requisitioning there, but that is about all. Labour has been only partly mobilised, and to a large extent the national life goes on unaffected. But Germany, even with her tremendous start, did not slacken her effort, and even to-day she is working full measure not only in her own factories, but also in the factories of the conquered countries. Curiously enough the measures of compulsion which have been taken against capital are, in the main, restricted to non-essential industries, while the measures for the compulsion of labour are in the main confined to the men engaged directly upon war operations. Can anyone pretend that even now, in this twenty-third month of the war, we are putting forward our full effort? Both to-day and yesterday, the Committee have listened to instance after instance, given by various Members, of stoppages, of full use not being made of machinery, of plant, factories, or men standing idle, and of spurts here and stoppages there. And are the supplies of tanks, guns and munitions, planes, fighters and bombers, satisfactory?
I am sorry I missed the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, but I have read it with very great care. Perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate him. It was a very full speech, and it gave quite a lot of information about small and incidental problems. But it has a very familiar ring about it. It was almost the same type of speech as those to which we have listened from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin), from the right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary, and from the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade, when they were Ministers of Supply. The brief seemed to come from the same office although the speakers had altered. We were told that everything was going smoothly, that all the criticisms raised had been thought of before, and that measures were being taken, step by step, to tackle the problem, and that the whole thing was revolving, slowly

it was true, but on a sure foundation. Was that the answer to the maiden speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Lieutenant Brabner)? I am yet to hear from that Box an answer to the charges he made. They certainly startled the Committee, and I am sure they also startled the country. Obviously his references to the tanks sent to Greece and the aerodromes in Crete have startled the Press judging by the prominence which was given to the speech in this morning's newspapers. The answer given by the Prime Minister, both from the Front Bench and in his message to the Prime Minister of Australia, was that we sent all we could, and that the only thing that stopped us sending more was lack of shipping space. But was that shipping space used to send tanks, 70 per cent, or 80 per cent, of which broke down before they even came into contact with the enemy?
That is the charge which has been made. What was the answer? Is it the one suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), that although the tanks had been sent the spare parts were not? What is the answer to the charge that the guns which had been sent there could not reach the dive bombers? What is the good of production, unless it is production to meet the enemy, and meet him on fair grounds? The hon. Gentleman opposite seems to think this is a laughing matter. It was not a laughing matter for the men who died in Greece and Crete, and it was certainly not a laughing matter for the men who volunteered from the Dominions for the defence of themselves and this country. What is more, if things are, as suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, why has Lord Beaver-brook been made Minister of Supply? If things were being done so well by the President of the Board of Trade, why move him? If everything was going well, as he would ask the Committee to believe, why take a good man, who is a good organiser, away from that office? The very fact that he has been removed and Lord Beaverbrook put in his place is the complete answer to the speech which was made from that Box yesterday. We know Lord Beaverbrook is a quick-moving mobile force who is put into the breach when danger is threatened. He performed miracles, as


all know, when he went to the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I have not the slightest doubt that he will perform prodigious feats in the production of tanks, but tanks are not the only need of this country. What I am hoping is that we shall have balanced production, not a rush for this, and then a rush for that. The needs of the Navy, Air Ministry, and certainly cargo-shipping space, must not be unduly sacrificed. As far as cargo-' shipping space is concerned, that must not be sacrificed, even for tanks or aeroplanes.
Can anyone pretend that we have that steady rhythm which was referred to in the speech of the Minister of Labour when he plaintively begged employers to release 30,000 men to go back into the mines? It seemed to me when I read that speech that the right hon. Gentleman mistook his position. He is not the chief mendicant for this country. He ought not to take up the position of being a poor beggar. He is the Minister of Labour, and we expect him to lead and to take the necessary measures which will give us the production, and not to go cap in hand and beg. There has to be rhythm. There has to be a balance of material, factory space and machinery. Can anyone pretend that the factories are working with smooth regularity to-day? We have had instances of factories and works going on short time, often stopped, often waiting for fresh orders. That is not working to rhythm. That is working to a sort of peculiar syncopation, and in any event the tempo is far too slow.
Our system is still based, even now when we are approaching the second anniversary of the war, upon the individual firm as the unit of production. Tenders are still invited, contracts are discussed and ultimately bargains are struck. Competition and profit-making are still regarded as the main incentives. So long as we continue to guide ourselves by the finances which used to form our guide in the pre-war period and do not turn to economic planning, so long as men have to bear their own losses and carry their own obligations individually, so long will they continue to struggle for profit, and what might seem to many, unfair profit, in order to recoup themselves and protect themselves against individual calamity. It is perfectly natural.

The corollary, too, is perfectly natural. Is it then to be wondered at that the trade unions, even in a time of national crisis calling for national unity, should feel strongly that they are an essential part of the community and that they have to continue to watch with the utmost vigilance the interests of their members with regard to hours, conditions and wages, just as they did in time of peace, in order to prevent exploitation? Is it to be wondered at in circumstances like that that there is continuous bickering and that capital and labour, even in a time like this, abuse one another, and that abuse is in the sacred name of patriotism and in the name of production?
Absenteeism and bad management have been mentioned by many. I do not think there is much absenteeism. The employers are accusing the men of absenteeism and the men, on the other hand, are accusing the employers of bad management and lack of proper mental capacity. That, in itself, would be an evil at a time like this, but it is rendered all the worse when the Minister of Labour himself joins in the battle of bickering and gives fresh slogans for the contestants to carry on the battle. I blame neither the men nor the employers. The vast majority in both sections are good and the failures are a small minority, but if there is any absenteeism or bad management which is stopping production the remedy is in the hands of the Government. The power has been given to them and it is for them to act and act quickly. Whenever a charge of this kind is made there should be an immediate inquiry into the bad management or absenteeism, finding out whether it is avoidable or unavoidable absenteeism. I quite agree that a large part of what is known as avoidable absenteeism is due to the very causes which bring about unavoidable absenteeism. Let the inquiry be made and, if the charges are found to be true, let the Government act firmly and quickly. The power is certainly within their hands. Even with this tremendous fight that Russia is putting up this war can easily be lost. It would be a crime against humanity in any event if it were lost. It would be a bigger crime if it were lost because of lack of firmness in action against inefficiency.
We are entering now upon a stage of the war when, in regard to the production of many articles, there will be a shortage


of raw materials. This is due to many causes, and that stage has unfortunately been brought forward by wasteful use of materials in the past, wasteful use of stocks, and of course it has been brought forward to-day by the decrease in our shipping space owing to the very large losses which we have suffered and are suffering. The time is approaching when there will be not only short time, not only intermittent unemployment, but I am afraid regular unemployment. What is the position with regard to production? The factors essential for production are material, management of machinery and tools, labour, transport, food, coal and petrol. Many materials, of course, are common for production, for war operations and for civilians. At the moment, they are the subject of competing users, though under the distant direction, I agree, of the Production Executive and of the body about which an hon. Member spoke yesterday which is under the chairmanship of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport. But they deal only with these matters in large quantities. They just settle a sort of general priority or division. Not only-do civilian needs compete with war needs but, whatever be the scheme of the Ministry of Supply on paper, we know that, in fact, war needs compete amongst themselves and are competing daily to-day. Why should there be this dual control? Why should there be, for example, a Director of Materials for Army Clothing? I assume that there will be soon a Director of Materials for Civilian Clothing, which, has now been rationed. Why should not all that be under one person? How can a man ration materials when he does not know the whole scope of the quantity that he has for distribution?
We shall have most carefully to husband our materials and conserve our stocks. We shall need every bit and every ounce of them in the coming months. But we must do something further, and this is what I am begging of the Ministries concerned to do. They can use substitutes, however expensive they may be in labour, so long as they can be efficiently used. Let them go into this matter and see what substitutes which are in this country can be used, so that nothing shall be brought on ships except those things without which we cannot possibly go on. There has been

a considerable change during the last 12 months. When the war started the Government Departments were in the main buyers from the manufacturers, but stocks have now run down, and individual firms are finding it more and more difficult to obtain the necessary materials, and distribution is uneven. No wonder, therefore, there are these stoppages; keen competition for some necessary material to complete a contract; a bottleneck here and a bottleneck there; some small gadget, without which the main article cannot be completed, very often some article which has been earmarked for a particular job, taken off that job and given to another, or, conversely, perhaps another article very vital for something which is immediately urgent cannot be used because it has been earmarked for something less urgent.
What is the remedy for all this? There must be more control over materials and a more unifying control, less of these dualities and less fighting for position and priority. There must also be more direction and control of industry itself. Let each industry be regarded as a whole and not as a mere conglomeration of competing individuals and of firms fighting for supremacy and even for their very existence. That is the next phase to which I believe the Government will have to come. Treat an industry as one and give it the duty of producing the articles which the individuals in the industry now produce and for which they are competing among themselves. Do away with tenders and individual contracts. Let there be only one contract with the industry itself, and leave the allocation to be made by the industry to the individual firms and companies. Do away with sealed samples and sealed patterns. The Government in these circumstances would regard itself not as the buyer from competing firms, but as the supreme director and manufacturer throughout the country, the actual work in each branch being carried out by each industry as a whole. Only then will the Government be able, not merely to control production, but to mobilise labour. There have been many disputes between us in the House with regard to the moment for more compulsion with regard to labour. I have never advocated compulsion for labour unless industry is compelled too. Until we have taken industry and directed and controlled it, I shall be sur-


prised if any hon. Member comes forward and says that labour ought to be controlled and mobilised.
If once we have taken hold of industry and directed it in this way, labour will not need compulsion, but at any rate, we can mobilise it. We can, however, do that only if we get a fair wage policy covering the whole of labour. That is the answer to so many questions which have been thrown from one side of the House to another. We cannot blame anybody refusing to work for less wages or slackening down because he has less wages than another man. There ought to be a fair wage policy, with commensurate proper payment for each person according to his class of work. When we have that, when we have industry and labour organised and materials under the control of the Government, there will then be no jealousies and no invidious comparisons which lead to bickering and slackening. Let there be no competition between the Services. We cannot, for example, have the Navy and Air Force sacrificed to the Army. Do not let one gain at the expense of the other. The danger, as I see it, is that the vigour, the ruthless energy and the driving methods of Lord Beaverbrook will over-ride the First Lord and the Minister of Aircraft Production.
The right remedy has already been suggested by hon. Members, and that is to have one Minister of Production. I have in and out of season asked for this. I asked for it as long ago as October or November, 1939. I have repeated that request from time to time, so that all these matters can be considered as a whole, whether they concern the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, or whether they concern the civilians— because their morale and their continuation on the best standards of living are as essential for victory as are the Army, the Navy and the Air Force themselves. All these things ought to be under one control, just as the Defence Ministers are under the control of the Prime Minister. In that way only shall we be able to do away with this disputing about position and priorities where one is pulling one way and another is pulling another, although undoubtedly every man has the desire to give the best account he can of his own Department, and we should "have one man at the head of all Departments taking a proper and

fair view of them all. I do not think that there is anyone more capable to fulfil that position than the Noble Lord who is Minister of Supply. His driving force and energy will get all these other Departments and Ministers upon a level, and no one will have a privilege above another. Only in that way can we get the whole country mobilised as it still has to be mobilised. A real danger at the present moment is that the great fight and the wonderful success of Russia against the full might of Germany thrown against it may lead us to a sense of complacency. This is a moment above all others when we should give our very best. We are given an opportunity now which must not be missed. Every man, every bit of material, everything should be turned to that production which will ensure the victory which we all desire.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): Nothing turns out as one expects. I had long resigned myself to the thought that I was to be a Back-bench Member for the rest of my life, and nothing more enjoyable than that could I imagine, but a turn of the wheel, a request from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I found myself Minister of Transport. In my dreams I had thought of myself as Minister of Transport as a sort of modern Colossus of Rhodes. But all I had to speak about was a railway agreement, and it was a very unsatisfactory speech, because it was what was called a delaying speech. That was in sacerdotal surroundings. That was my only experience on the Treasury Bench as Minister of Transport. Here I am now as Minister of Aircraft Production. Having thought that perhaps I would start the proceedings with a clear field and an hour in which to expound my views and paint a picture of my Department, I find I am here to start the few words I have to say by answering many points that have been made in a two days' Debate, addressing, instead of green, red benches no doubt out of respect to our new Allies.
First, I should like to refer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies). I do not wish to answer him point by point, but he did say, I thought in an unfriendly way, that he thought the speech of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply was


a monotonous repetition of what had been said before. If that was so, I do not think my hon. and learned Friend himself kept away from that path, because I have heard him before address to the Committee speeches of such a gloomy type that it was only with difficulty that I was restrained from bursting into tears. According to him there seems to be nothing right at all in any Department of State. Anyhow, I have no doubt he enjoyed his speech, and I hope we shall be able to answer some of his points as we go along. Then we had one of those vigorous entertaining speeches from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Ipswich is a town in those counties which are far away from some centres and one expects the Member to be always a little curious. He raised one or two questions which I want to answer. One was about spares for aircraft. I can assure him that the position as to spares for aircraft has been very nearly put right. As to local area organisations, I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not agree about the merits of these area organisations but we have been using more and more, and I hope that he will get into touch with his own particular branch in his own town and get it going, as I know he will, with all the efficiency he can. As to the protection of factories from the aircraft point of view I can assure my hon. Friend that that is satisfactory.

Mr. Stokes: Within what limit of time is action taken?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Within half a minute. On the tank versus aeroplane question, my hon. Friend knows perfectly well what is the policy of the Government on that point. If the House of Commons were ever to persuade the Government to take a different line from that which it is following now, I should have to reconsider my position, because it would be against my conscience to make a change of policy of that kind. But I have every confidence that the House of Commons will never persuade the Government to take that line. An hon. Member from Lancashire said that American machines when they came here had to be overhauled and were so altered as to reduce their speed by 30 miles per hour— to the disgust of Americans. If he had had the experience I have had of aeroplanes, he would know that to reduce the speed of an aeroplane by 30

miles an hour in order to get it operationally fit is no new thing. The aeronautical designer likes to produce a machine which looks well in a glass case. The Air Staff like a flying Christmas tree. If it is a complete Christmas tree it will not fly, and if it is a flying machine which is a pretty thing to look at it will not fight, and there is always a conflict to reconcile these two points of view, but I know that there is no real reason why anyone should take exception to having an aeroplane slowed up for operational reasons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland), whose speech I did not wholly hear, asked me whether I could give a guarantee that there would be no victimisation of those giving information about cases where lack of efficiency is alleged. I can assure him that no victimisation will occur anywhere. All we are anxious to do is to get as much efficiency as we can, and any information will be welcome. Then he made a lot of accusations about technical secrets. I can assure him that in the aircraft industry technical secrets are well guarded. As to the question of firms manoeuvring for post-war positions, I can tell him that firms like A. V. Roe are making Blenheim machines, which were designed by the Bristol Company, and that De Havillands, who have their own types of machine, are making Oxfords. Every firm is making different machines from those designed by itself, and there is no playing up for post-war positions. As for buying out the whole of the engineering industry in order to get on with the war, that is too big a subject for me, but I have no doubt the Prime Minister could say a trenchant word about it.
The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) had a very serious complaint about a firm called Wimpeys. I am very sorry that I am unable to answer him on that point, but I do not know anything about Wimpeys, though I can see from the way in which he delivered his speech that he felt very strongly about it. It was, of course, a little out of Order. I will see that what he said is conveyed to the Minister of-Works and Buildings in order that he may investigate the matter, and I will ask him to reply.

Mr. Davidson: While I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for that reply,


will he keep it clear in his mind that the questions concerning this firm affect every Government Department—the Air Ministry, the War Office, and the Admiralty?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I will bear that in mind. I know that my hon. Friend bore it in mind, otherwise he could not have brought it up at all. My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), who opened this Debate in a very charming way, accused us of having too many American planes in this country without the necessary ancillary equipment. The accumulation of American planes was due to the fact that we took over the French orders which had been placed in America, and that a lot of alterations had to be made to those machines in order to get them operationally suitable for the Air Force. That is why there was an accumulation of that kind. They are now being sent to their operational centres and are doing great work. As to the complaint about the number of types of machines, I would point out that if we take a fighter and put in a different supercharger, we call the new model Mark I and if we put in four guns instead of two we call it Mark II, whereas if the Americans start with a machine called the Hawk the first type will be the Tomahawk, and the second the Kittihawk, and so it goes on, creating an impression that there are a number of different types, though in effect they are basically one. I am not pretending that there are not too many types in all air forces. From the manufacturing point of view I should like to see fewer, but then that is not the only point of view which has to be considered.

Mr. Garro Jones: I should be disappointed if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman passed so lightly over this aspect of the question. In point of fact, there are many more basic types now on order in the United States than there are on order in Britain for the Royal Air Force. Does he not find himself able to do something to encourage aircraft manufacturers in America towards unification of type as has been largely achieved in Great Britain?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: It is only lately that we have had unified effort in aircraft production in America, and

one had to order the types that existed in America at the time. No doubt, when the industry gets organised, types which are not ordered will fall away, and concentration will take place, as has happened in England, upon certain basic types, and that will be more satisfactory. His Majesty's Government are well aware of these matters. The hon. Member referred to people not getting a pat on the back for various things that they pushed forward successfully. He referred to Mr. Fraser Nash, who was the inventor of the electrically-operated turret. The gentleman who invented the hydraulic turret was Mr. J. D. North. Many people in the organisation of the Air Force have contributed remarkable things to the war effort and do not get a reward. It is very difficult to facie this situation. Some of them make up for it by constructing the article they invented, and getting their reward that way. I deserve a pat on the back myself for advocating the cannon gun four years ago.
I would say a word about the maiden speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Lieutenant Brabner). We were very pleased to hear him and are delighted to welcome him as a new Member able to make a contribution to our Debates. He asked me about the production and dispersal arrangements of certain types of gun for our aircraft. I can give him an assurance on that point. He raised a question about dive-bombing. My function is to supply to the Royal Air Force and the Naval Air Service their requirements, besides which I can, if I like, make a totally new machine to see whether they like it. It is not for me to impose upon the Army any particular type of machine. They may not have thought the dive-bomber a machine which they wished to operate, but the whole question of Army co-operation is so active and so near us now that things may change. It may be that dive-bombers will be wanted, but up to the present I have not been asked to supply them.
In regard to the Middle East, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that he is mistaken. There were aeroplanes in the Middle East. The Crete position has already been dealt with in another place. He made an accusation about tanks and the efficiency thereof. I have tried my best to find confirmation of what he said,


but there are no details, and I cannot accept the statement that 70 or 80 per cent, of those machines were out of commission before they saw the enemy. One hon. Member suggested that when there was no work for the people in the factories they should go on holiday. I will look into that matter.

Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern): A great deal of dissatisfaction exists among the workers being kept idle in the factories, and nobody takes the trouble to explain matters to them. If a factory is held up for lack of material, the workers naturally believe that it is due to bad management. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not make arrangements to give an explanation to them?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I was going to deal with that matter a little later. One of the points made was that piecework was being paid in astronomical figures. I can only say that the original rates were fixed before there was enough knowledge, perhaps, and they sometimes do rise to very high figures. In order to readjust the position certain machinery has to be used. I would not like to change them without operating such machinery.
On the question of holidays, I entirely agree. No one can work continuously seven days at a stretch. I have only recently given instructions to all aircraft factories to close down on Sundays except for work on acute bottlenecks. If I may borrow a comparison from racing parlance, I would say that you can make a good horse come once, and possibly twice, but you cannot flog him round the whole course the whole time. I am certain that the rhythm of production is only possible when you get a proper system in the factories.
Now I may be able to talk about my Ministry. When the Air Ministry was becoming bigger and bigger it was only right to separate the production side from the Service side. I have had a slight experience of the Air Ministry; it was getting so big as to be unmanageable. The Prime Minister put upon Lord Beaver-brook the very arduous task of getting the production side working as a new Ministry. It is a very unpopular thing to do. The whole of the production side had to be taken away, and he had to ginger

up the trade. That did not make him particularly popular up and down the industry. One must remember that when Lord Beaverbrook indulges in an operation, he is not very keen on anaesthetics. You must also remember that it was a very critical time, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Mosley (Mr. Hopkinson) said that Lord Beaverbrook got the machines because they had been designed and planned years before, that is not wholly true. It does not do justice to the man. He raided every hen-roost, he speeded up production in every factory, he produced machines which otherwise would never have been produced in any circumstances whatsoever, and he obtained that remarkable drive at a certain time which I believe he and he alone could do. I feel that Lord Beaverbrook is among those to whom the Prime Minister referred when he said that never was so much owed by so many to so few. I say that high upon the scroll of honour of this country must ever remain the name of Max Aitken, first Baron Beaverbrook. I was Minister of Transport at that time, and I could have murdered him for the way he went through my Department. He swept through every Department of State like Genghis Khan through Asia. It really was a remarkable effort.
I do not know whether any one of you ever visited Lord Beaverbrook in action, and, lest it be forgotten, I Should like to paint a little picture of him at work. I do not know if you have seen those cinematograph pictures of newspapers being produced, in which everybody is talking on telephones at the same time, and people are rushing about everywhere— which explains a lot in the newspaper world. I visited Lord Beaverbrook in his office. There were six or seven people in the outer office; nobody questioned my entry, and I walked through and found Lord Beaverbrook interviewing four people at the same time— and quite coherently. He had a telephone in one hand on which he was talking to America, and on another he was ordering his hairdresser to come round and cut his hair in the office. I never in my life met a man with more grasp, more energy, or able to do more things at the same time than that man. He really was indeed tremendous. Tremendous is the only way to describe him. And now I find myself coming in after this Colossus. It is a very serious matter,


because when I arrived they looked at me and said "This is a very poor fish after that great man," and I can well believe it. But, on the other hand, I am not going to be down-hearted about that, and I am going to approach my particular job, as Lord Birkenhead once said, "with no morbid feeling of lack of self-confidence."
I have been a stern critic of the Air Ministry and of their policy for many years, in fact, all my Parliamentary life. and the position to-day, which I do not consider so unsatisfactory, has been built up by the work and forethought of people years back. I have been only two months in my present office, and I am still a critic, because I know that nothing I can do can ever be expressed under a year and a half; that is one of the penalties of having any connection with the air. One must go back to people like Lord Londonderry, who urged the Government of the time to swell the Air Force. Then we come to Lord Swinton, who initiated the shadow factory, and if it were not for the shadow factory, we should to-day be in a very poor way. He did great work in starting that, and the country ought to pay a high tribute to him. If there was a mistake made at that time, I think it was that there should not have been expansion in the aircraft industry, whereas what happened was that the mass-producers of motor cars were asked to mass-produce aeroplanes. One thing you cannot do is to mass-produce a thing which was not designed for mass production, and our aeroplanes were certainly not designed for mass production. That was the mistake; if it had been the other way round— if the aircraft factories themselves had been asked to erect shadow factories — I think it would have been better. Then we come to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. During his period there was an unexampled expansion right throughout the country, which he was not there subsequently to see.
The aircraft industry is very much maligned, especially the old firms which are called the "ring." But I have known all these people all my life, and I have seen the hard times through which they went after the last war. In my own constituency, when I represented or misrepresented Chatham for so many years, there was a firm— Shortt Brothers— which

for years and years I kept alive by going to Lord Ashfield and entreating him to give them orders to make the motor bus bodies for London. It was in that way that they were kept alive, and now they have come to our national need, do we not owe them an enormous debt of gratitude because they had their designing staff ready there to help us? Still, now that we have a great industry we cannot discriminate between what is called the ring and those outside it, and in this new agreement for prices which is necessary because of the termination of the McClintock agreement, I have refused to negotiate with the Society of British Aircraft Constructors alone, and I have insisted on someone speaking for the whole industry. Along those lines I think we shall reach a satisfactory agreement on prices. I should like to remind my hon. Friend that aeroplane prices are not settled at random. We try at the earliest possible moment to make a set price for each machine. There must be an incentive to the designer to make an aeroplane which is easily made, and T want to say that under that agreement, if two machines are designed and one of them can be produced at the rate of five a week while the other can only be produced at the rate of one a week, the man who produces the former should get more reward.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that, in the event of its being possible to produce more than was anticipated because of an alteration in the jigs, it should be possible for the price to be reduced?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That depends on very special circumstances. Of course, the alteration of jigs may diminish the time which the machine takes to make, and consequently a reduction in price would be justified. Then there is the hon. Member for Mossley, whose speeches always amuse us. We always enjoy them, because they are founded on such knowledge. I do not suppose that anyone knows so much about so many subjects as he does. He made a speech the other day; he made the same speech twice. I listened to both; I know. When I heard the first one, I said, "He has dug up an old speech of mine, and he is making it again." It was a very sound oration.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: May I interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I made it twice before he made it.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: We shall have to check the OFFICIAL REPORT afterwards. The gravamen of his complaint is that when an aeroplane is designed there is nobody there to see that it can be easily manufactured. He quoted the Corps of Naval Architects, who can check new designs. In the building of ships it is not really a question, very often, of mass production, but in aircraft construction it is, or should be to-day, a question of mass production. What I would like to see is the ideal, that is, to get a highly scientific designer of aeroplanes, let him produce an aeroplane, let it go through its trials, see that it is the right thing. Then I should like to get a cigar-chewing production engineer from Detroit and tell him, "There is the sort of machine I want; make it the easiest way." That could be done, but the trouble is that you can do that when you do not want a lot of machines. When you want a lot of machines in a hurry you cannot do it. There is no time to do it. It is a very tiresome proposition. I am in sympathy with what he says. I have tried to get that organisation, first of all within the firms, but I do not want to impose advice upon the firms which would in any way stop production. The old system of ordering aeroplanes was that the Air Staff said, "We want an aeroplane which will, say, go to Rome, carrying such and such a load of bombs, and come back." Some drawings of more or less suitable machines would be made, and they would be ordered from the point of view of prototypes. The making of a prototype takes from one and a half to two years. The machine would arrive and would be sent down to be tested, one of them would crash, and that would put things back for a long time. Eventually the Air Staff would come along and say that they wanted this and that arranged. Finally, the machine would go into production, and after production it would again be tested and eventually get into the squadrons. The whole of that process, which is perfectly sound, results in the aircraft, from the time it is conceived to the time of getting into the squadrons, taking six years and being well out of date before it arrived. That was a thoroughly unsatisfactory system, although one that

used to occur in peace-time. We cannot do that now.
We have, so to speak, to gamble on these machines. The Air Staff have to tell us what they want. We examine and pass drawings and designs which are put up, and we not only order a prototype but order the planning of production immediately. Very often within a month or two, when the prototype has arrived and is tested for aerodynamic qualities, the Air Staff come along and say they require this and that. We know perfectly well that any aeroplane must go out of date in a certain time and that there must be changes from one type to another. All these things require a tremendous lot of planning. When you see that one machine is going to disappear, from the operational point of view, you have to splice into that factory another machine. It is very difficult to get everyone in that works working whole time while that splicing takes place. In certain cases it can be done; it has been done, in some cases, with great success. One trouble of my Ministry is that it is not always making the same thing. It may be that a machine we are making turns out not to be a success operationally. The Air Staff come along and say, "We do not want any more of that." That is where I have great trouble from the point of view of production, because I have not another machine to splice into that factory. These are the worst cases I have of people being without any work. I think then that some of our highly-skilled labour must be transferred temporarily one Way or another. All these difficulties, I agree, must be explained, so that they can be understood by the workers. There has to be leadership. I have given instructions and all the encouragement I can to ensure that everyone shall be working as a team.
I have been criticised for modifications. Hampering as they are from the point of view of production, I can assure the Committee that they have, operationally, beneficial results. On our side we say, "No," to any modification, unless it can be shown that there is great operational advantage in it. After all, aircraft are for operational use, not just to make a noise in the sky. I want to say a word about the big bomber programme. So many people come to me and say, "Why have you got three?" I ought to explain something about that. When the big bomber pro-


gramme was envisaged it was a new aeronautical conception altogether. Here was a machine which had to fly to Berlin and back, and carry an enormous load— not a load of one ton of bombs, but of tons. That had never been done up to that time. It must have astonished the Americans, who thought they had the biggest machine in the world, when they came over here and saw three models of something bigger than they had ever seen. It might have been a success or it might not, but I think it was right to take the long-range view that we should have three arrows to our bow, and they were made. It is true that, now that they are flying, it would have been nice to have concentrated on one and nothing else. But we have three and we shall go on with three.
I am not pretending that these big aeroplanes, with all their complexities, have not given trouble. This is a very heavy aeroplane. You see them sitting on two wheels with pneumatic tyres. Do you realise that each carries a load equal to a steam roller and a half and has to gallop across the field at 90 miles an hour? No wonder they sometimes go wrong. It is true that each one of these big, heavy aeroplanes has been grounded owing to troubles— not teething troubles, jaw troubles, I can assure the Committee. My Ministry have had to rush down with all the great technical ability they can muster and put them right. They are flying, and are getting better every day. There is a wonderful system of organisation of repairs, introduced by my predecessor, to which I must pay a tribute. Relative to our production, if you can keep the repairs going, every repaired machine, from an operational point of view, is as good as a new one. There are three types of repairs. There is the type that is done by the squadrons; there is the second, which is done where the machine is wrecked by civil gangs of experts, who come to deal with it on the spot; and there is the third, under which you have to take the machine back to the works, pull it to bits, and repair it— this is the method for the very big major crashes. This system of travelling experts to go down and deal with a crashed machine has been an enormous help. Then there is the question of storage, of avoiding concentration. That has been a very remarkable thing. At one time we

were rapidly drifting to the storage of aircraft, tails up, in vast hangars, so that one bomb might have done in hundreds; but now the machines are well distributed.
I will speak about American production now. America is a mass-producing country. They are slow in their start and enormous in their eventual production. I do not want the Committee to think that we are getting at present anything like the numbers required. What we are getting now is the stuff that was ordered practically at the beginning of the war. It is difficult to get a general picture, because there is what we ordered on our own, with our own money; there is the Lease-and-Lend programme, superimposed upon that; and then there is the possible release from the Army of the United States. But the situation is that more and more can we get these moderate-weight-carrying bombers, and also big ones. I hope finally to get to a situation in which every single machine from the United States delivers itself by air. That must come. The great B.24 Liberator is already doing great service across the Atlantic. I want to see that service increased. My job is to keep the technicians of both Continents in tune. You can so easily waste time and get at cross purposes by letter writing, whereas you can get rid of a technical difficulty in a quarter of an hour by talk. The position is getting better in that respect, but I should like to see still more improvement.
We disclose everything to the Americans, and they disclose everything to us, both on the scientific side and on the commercial side. Now we have made a separate arrangement, so that no American machine ever arrives in this country without its godfather to look after it, to see that it is treated with respect and affection. I have seen machines flown by people who did not understand them, and given a bad name entirely through ignorance. These machines will have their technicians ready at the start to keep them serviced, and we are sending men to the other side to get used to them and to convey the technical requirements of our operational Air Force. Although there is a good deal to do, machines will come over slowly at first and faster and faster soon, equipped ready to go into operation. That will be a great relief to me.
As regards dispersal, I was asked whether if an enemy attack took place on one works it would ever stop the production of a machine. I can assure the Committee—and this again is due to my predecessor—that the splitting-up of production is really quite well done. An attack on one particular place could not stop the production of any single machine of an operational type in this country. And with regard to the "bits and pieces," if you have to go without one source, it does not hold up your whole production on one machine. That work has not only been duplicated but made up some four or five times, so that is really an achievement for which I bless my predecessor every night. It is a very remarkable achievement.
I would like to say a word about engines, because, as I have said before, I was weaned on petrol. I would like to rush along with new engines of vast horse-power as quickly as I can, but the development of engines is one of the slowest things in the world. It takes four years to get an engine from the original drawing to being a satisfactory engine. When I started flying I started with an engine of about 27 horse-power. I remember in the last war that 100 horse-power was looked upon as a remarkable machine. In this war we started with 1,000 horse-power, and now we have got 2,000. The complexity of aviation engines like that is not to be compared with those simpler engines that we used to make. We have adopted engines with carburettors, but the Germans, owing no doubt to the absence of good fuel, have adopted a fuel injection system rather like that of the Diesel engine. They have to be built to get very high indeed, and in order to get higher you have to pump air through their engines. That, we are chasing hard. We now get our fighters from about 35,000 feet up to 37,000 feet and several over 40,000 feet. It is an advantage—I do not say that all fighters should—to have a squadron of fighters which can be sitting on top of the others, and this struggle for height is one which is reflected in my Ministry from the point of view of the technical side.

Mr. Granville: Is the same urgency shown with regard to the improvement of oxygen?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: All these things go together, of course. We

have a pressurised cabin from the point of view of general health. I have not said that I have produced 150 per cent, more than what was done last March— come Michaelmas Day. That sort of thing always used to annoy me, and it meant nothing at all. When I was a private Member, when the war started, I had in my own mind a sort of datum figure of what I thought the industry had to achieve for the position to be satisfactory. No matter what that figure is, we are to-day not quite, but very nearly at it. But do not be misled by figures too much. The engine for a fighter alone is of 2,000 horse-power, and now comes the long-range bomber, with four engines of 1,100 horse-power each—75,000 man-hours in the machine alone. You cannot compare the delivery of one of these to the delivery of one Moth. You must compare the bomb load carried, the range and that sort of thing. What does it all mean? Where have we got and how do we stand? I am not on the operational side. I have just to supply the goods, but if in the time that Lord Beaverbrook made that great effort to defeat the enemy by making fighters— if he could do it then, then the chances of the enemy invading this country to-day would be very much poorer indeed. As for the other side— the offensive side— where are we going? I do not say that we have got exactly all we want to get yet, but we are coming along. Members will remember the famous Wednesday and Saturday raids on London. It is an easy thing to raid London from France, and it is a much more difficult thing to raid Berlin from London, but I can assure hon. Members that it will not be many months before a raid like that on London will be child's play compared with that which we will be able to make on Berlin.
Now I want to say that our present position has nothing to do with me. It is due to people who worked and schemed and are now sometimes forgotten, and who were sometimes thrown into the wilderness two or three years ago. I want all to bear that in mind, because whoever occupies my office only begins to see the result of his work a year or 18 months afterwards. To me it seems very silly that we should be making this type of machine. But this destruction from-the air will pass, and I must say that I should like, at a later date, to be asso-


ciated with the reconstruction in which flight will be able to contribute towards a worthy future. There is a French proverb which says, "To know all is to forgive all." Those of us who started this particular movement thought it would bring the world together. All my life I have pleaded for the commercial side of aviation. Mechanical science has run ahead of political wisdom. What an extraordinary thing it is that I find myself to-day charged with making the most devastating life-destroying force that has ever been asked to be put into shape. I do not like the idea, but you have asked me to do it, and I pledge myself to do it to the best of my ability.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.-— [Major Dugdale.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT OF BOYS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. David Adams: Some little time ago I put a Question to the Minister of Labour, and that Question, with the answer to it, is the foundation on which I hope to present briefly to the House a certain case. Therefore, it will be necessary for me to read the Question and the answer. I asked the Minister of Labour:
Under what powers boys who, at one time, were engaged in coal-mining but had entered other occupations, are being ordered to leave such employment by the Consett Employment Exchange and re-enter the pits; and whether guarantees are being given to such entrants that they will be taught one of the recognised crafts of the industry and not be entering blind-alley employment with the status of labourers?

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Adams: The Minister of Labour replied:

A few boys at Consett who had secured employment outside the coal-mining industry in contravention of the Undertaking (Restriction on Engagement) Order, 1940, were directed by the National Service officer under Regulation 58A of the Defence (General) Regulations to return to coal-mining. Persons so directed have the right to appeal to the local appeal board. With regard to the last part of the Question, I have brought to the notice of my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines the importance of providing adequate training for boys in the coal-mining industry, but it would not be practicable to confine the issue of directions to cases in which the boys are to be trained as craftsmen.
It is the last part of the answer which has been highly unsatisfactory to the boys, their parents, and, I imagine, to Consett generally. For some time past, certain of those boys have been in other occupations, and one at least had become an apprentice to a somewhat important trade. Certainly, all of them believed that they were improving their position. The determination to bring them back to the pits meant that, if there was not to be a specific undertaking that they would learn to be craftsmen in the pits— and there are many occupations which are not those of craftsmen— they might end their days merely as unskilled labourers. I contended that the determination—whether it was avoidable or not, perhaps does not matter—was unjust to the boys, and accordingly, the Consett Labour party, which is composed almost exclusively of miners and their wives and daughters, passed a resolution:
The Consett Labour party strongly protest against the operation of the Restriction on Engagement Order in the coal industry, which is forcing boys back to the mines after they have obtained work of a more beneficial nature, including apprenticeships.
No one could take exception, in the circumstances, to such an attitude by a party representing the miners, but the position of any boys entering this industry is, or may be, generally speaking, unsatisfactory to them, to their parents, and, in my judgment, to the coal industry as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Spenny-moor (Mr. Batey) and I were invited prior to the war by a number of men representing the miners' lodges in my division to address a very largely attended meeting on what we considered to be a great hardship to young men in the industry. No fewer than 60 young men in this group of collieries had suddenly been dismissed at the age of 20 or thereabouts. I made careful inquiries


and found, as far as I could ascertain, that every one of these young men was of a good standard, a good worker, a good time-keeper, and had played his part in the industry. But the offence was that they were reaching man's estate, that is to say, in a few months they would be entitled to a man's wage, and, if they happened to be married, which was not very likely at that age, then they would be entitled to a house and coal.
It certainly cannot be contended that there was much justice or fair play in the industry towards these 6o young men. It is not that this was an extraordinary or exceptional occurrence, because it had occurred many times before, and it no doubt occurs in other collieries. But in similar cases it had been in small doses only, whereas in this connection a very large number was involved. These young men had fulfilled their contract to the letter. They had studied safety-first, rescue work and pit experience, and many had gone to classes which were held in the employer's time and at the employer's expense to gain additional experience. I was told that some of them had attended night classes with great regularity to prepare themselves for some higher office, such as deputies or other positions in the industry, and that some had been making preparations for marriage. This sudden dismissal, before they had completed their time in the pit, meant that their life's work was shattered. Accordingly, many of them— and I was very careful to keep in touch with them— left the district and entered other industries. Some, under the pressure of unemployment and poverty, became labourers to the local council and elsewhere. It was a situation which appeared to be grossly unfair, particularly when there was added to it the injunction, when they received their notice, that if they had any younger brothers of 14 or so, they could send them to the pit to take their place.
The position is that these young men may be suspended or dismissed at any time, without appeal, remedy or compensation. Young men in our district may enter the industry at the age of 14, which I consider to be far too early an age, and then, when they reach the age of 20, they may be dismissed, thereby losing a life's vocation. They may give of their best, and yet their career may

be shattered before they have completed their training. It is a loss to the individual, to his parents, and certainly to the local authorities, who spend much on the scholastic side in training a boy for a career. I do not think it can be controverted that under existing conditions the young mineworker due to unemployment is exposed to moral, mental and physical losses due to casual, blind-alley and ill-paid employment. The nation in self-defence should strongly repress any misuse of young labour in any of our trades or businesses.
What is the industry's viewpoint in this matter? We were warned by statisticians of population that there would be a progressive decrease in the supply of juveniles for employment between 1938 and 1941. The calling up from the ages of 18 to 35 of men except in certain reserved occupations has naturally created a much increased demand everywhere for boys and young men. The Secretary for Mines has informed us that the shortage of boys has become so acute that he would not be surprised if certain collieries, for lack of such labour, would be incapable of running their pits at a reasonable margin of profit. Therefore it is necessary that there should be some schemes for attracting boys to this industry. In my judgment apprenticeship is the remedy. I was apprenticed to engineering, and I have every sympathy with apprenticeship. Its advantages are quite obvious. It is a singular thing— I think it may be due to controversies within the industry on both sides— that it is not classed among the great crafts. We have this position, that in the new age of mechanisation the mineworker may shortly be a jack of all trades and master of none. Under the swift and far-reaching changes in production wrought by mechanisation there has been established a large and increasing number of occupations in this industry deemed to be casual apart from filling, coal cutting, hewing, putting and stonework, which are piecework and are not so designated, although mechanisation is eating into these, and perhaps they will be unknown in a few years' time. My proposal is that this skein formed by the multiplicity of separate operations, each assumed wrongly to be unskilled, must be woven into one or more comprehensive operations of production to form the basis for apprenticeship, and in that way we can avoid the casualisation of the


army of youthful labour and initiate a new era of craftsmanship in the industry.
I have a cloud of witnesses in favour of this suggestion. I am glad to advise the Secretary for Mines that I had a pleasant and somewhat protracted interview with the General Secretary of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, Mr. Ebby Edwards. He was, naturally, not expected to give his unqualified blessing to the proposition, but he was good enough to say that it decidedly ought to be examined by those concerned and that it might prove to be of great benefit to the industry. I have conversed with certain colliery owners, and they said that it was a practical scheme and asked what objection could they possibly have to it. Parents who have declined to send their older sons into the industry said that they had no objection to their younger boys going into it, if the scheme gave them greater security. The details can be worked out by the miners and the owners. Mr. Ebby Edwards stated that the Secretary for Mines, if he agreed, might submit to the National Joint Consultative Committee, which is a committee of masters and men, a scheme for apprenticeship and invite those concerned to work it out. A complaint I have had is that if this scheme were initiated and boys were bound to the industry, they would be at the mercy of the coalowners. On the contrary, in my judgment, the welfare and wages of the bound apprentices would be the concern of the Miners' Federation to a degree that has not been noticed up to date, in the same way as the Amalgamated Engineering Union protects the interests of and is continually humanising the industry, as far as boys and young men are concerned.
The broad results of the reform would be that there would be a steady flow into the industry of qualified labour which is now declining, and a greater sense of responsibility and of personal interest by that labour in the industry. The lads and the parents would have a sense of security which hitherto has been absent, and I know that they would give the scheme their blessing. As far as the nation is concerned, this basic industry would he-come free from the casualising influences of mechanisation, which is really sapping the vitality of the industry in many directions. I believe that the nation would be able to enter the international competitive

struggle with a greater assurance of solidarity throughout the industry. I believe the change would add to the dignity, interest, attractiveness and safety of the industry and usher in an era of good will and settled peace and prosperity for it.

Mr. Leslie: The deplorable plight of many of these pit-boys has been brought to my notice recently and I want to cite two cases. One is that of a lad who left school at 14 years of age and went to the surface to do screen work for a short period. As the work did not agree with his health, he got a job in the building trade. After being 12 months away from the pit he has been refused his green card at the Exchange and told that he must return to mine work. The other case is that of a boy who applied for a situation with a railway company. The company said he would be all right for the situation, he had passed his medical examination, and they were waiting for a vacancy for him. In the meantime, he took a temporary job at screen work on the surface. Again, this boy has been told that he must return to the mines and he has been refused his green card. The railway company are unable to accept him. In both cases the mine manager was prepared to release the boys but, up to the present time, they cannot do so. The Army refuse to allow miners to come back even for a short period, but they are prepared to allow workers to come back to farms in order to produce food. Yet they do not recognise that we need production of coal. They refuse to allow men to return to the mines, but these boys are told that they must return, and be deprived of good situations elsewhere.

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am very pleased at the interest which has been shown by my two hon. Friends on this subject. I cannot be expected to deal fully with the details of the cases which they have raised, but I have a very hearty sympathy with the general case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams). That sympathy was not aroused solely by the capable way in which he presented his case, on which presentation I compliment him. It began when I was a member of the Royal Commission upon Safety in Mines. That Commission gave very close attention to this


very serious social problem. I can tell my hon. Friends that the number of young people under 20 years of age in the mining industry has been steadily declining. There is a considerably smaller number of men employed in the industry under that age than was the case 10 years ago. Between December, 1929, and December, 1939, the number of young men under 20 years of age in the industry declined by 40 per cent., while the number of men of all ages declined during the same period by just over 20 per cent. Undoubtedly there is a dearth of young labour. There is increasing evidence of the unattractiveness of mining labour to young people. There is an even more serious aspect of this matter. Boys who have been employed for a time and who have done everything that ambitious and eager boys can do to qualify themselves for a place in the industry have found that, when they attained the age of manhood and were in the neighbourhood of 20 or 21, they were no longer required. This work is one of the worst blind-alley occupations in the country, because a boy who is thrown out of work at the age of 20 finds nowhere else to go in his mining village. The position is far worse for him than it is for a boy in a town with mixed industries offering a choice of occupations. When this boy is denied one occupation, he may have the chance of half a dozen others.
The case made out by the hon. Members has been conceded in advance by the Royal Commission, which dealt with it at very great length. I will bring to the notice of my hon. Friend the Commission's recommendations, and at some time they will come before this House. I am seriously perturbed regarding the supply of young labour to the mines of this country. More and more men are needed in this industry with a knowledge of the principles and supervision of machinery. A special class of skill is increasingly required because of the considerable increase in the mechanisation of mines. When one is considering the question of apprenticeship, one must recognse that the methods of training boys in the pit to which many of us were accustomed do not apply to modern mining conditions. Many of us began work in the pit with our fathers, who taught us all there was to be known about the handicraft and the rude tech-

nique of mining in those days. We reached full competency in our mining work by the age of 20 or 21. That is not the case to-day. Electricity, compressed air, and machines of all kinds are in the mines and have considerably increased the proportion of boys employed to tend those machines. The boys have to see that the machines do not jeopardise the safety of the men in the mines. The mere presence of the machinery in the mines does not make the mines more safe, because, with the high potential of electricity, and the pressure of the compressed air, it is necessary for the machines to have adequate and skilled supervision. There is additional danger to the men in the mines if that is not forthcoming. On grounds of safety in the mines, these young men must have an opportunity of becoming skilled in occupations that remain open to them.
The case has been fully made out. One of my hon. Friends said that he had been speaking on this matter to the general secretary of the Mineworkers' Federation, who is very familiar with this problem, especially as it exists on Tyneside. In Northumberland and Durham many youths engaged on these occupations are from 18 to 20 years of age. The general secretary of the Mineworkers' Federation took a prominent part in the work of the Royal Commission in dealing with this subject. I know that he is very keen about it, and I know that the coalowners are too. I have discussed this matter during the last 12 months, in connection with the general operation of the industry, and I made a recommendation over 12 months ago that we should give some solid inducement to young men to come in and remain in the mining industry. I do not know that there is any better way of providing that inducement than the plan proposed by my hon. Friends. I know that there are very serious difficulties. Mining is not an industry that goes on for ever. A mine which employs 1,000 men and offers sufficient inducement to young men to come in may become exhausted in the course of time. The minerals are worked out and the pits close down.
There are technical difficulties in the way, but I make this specific promise to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett. I will send him the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and I will bring more immediate pressure to bear upon the


subject by submitting the matter to the joint consultative committee of both sides of the industry. With my knowledge of the opinions and practical knowledge of both sides of that body, I have every confidence that the matter will be thoroughly considered and examined with the intention of formulating some scheme, in groups or areas, for giving permanence and stability to the conditions of employment. The youth who enters this industry

should have thorough technical instruction, so that he can feel he is entering upon a career as a skilled worker in an important industry and gain a feeling of stability and security which will stand him in good stead later in life.

It being the hour appointed) for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.